1872 – Artarmon/Castlecrag Local Centres Draft Heritage Report … · 2019. 12. 4. · © Architectural Projects Pty Limited: 1872 R1 HR Artarmon:Castlecrag Local Centres v2r5 20191202

© Architectural Projects Pty Limited: 1872 R1 HR Artarmon:Castlecrag Local Centres v2r5 20191202 sa.docx

1872 – Artarmon/Castlecrag Local Centres Draft Heritage Report December 2019


1872 – ARTARMON/CASTLECRAG LOCAL CENTRES – HERITAGE REPORT Document Control

Version Date Status Author Verification

01 29.11.19 Draft Jennifer Hill Director, Registered Architect 4811

Elizabeth Gibson Associate, Senior Consultant

02 02.12.19 Draft Jennifer Hill Director, Registered Architect 4811

Elizabeth Gibson Associate, Senior Consultant

©COPYRIGHT This report is copyright of Architectural Projects Pty Ltd and was prepared specifically for the owners of the site. It shall not be used for any other purpose and shall not be transmitted in any form without the written permission of the authors.

1872 | ARTARMON/CASTLECRAG LOCAL CENTRES

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 11.1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 11.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 11.3. SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................................... 11.4. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 21.5. LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 21.6. IDENTIFICATION OF AUTHORS ................................................................................................ 21.7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2

2. ARTARMON LOCAL CENTRE ................................................................................................... 32.1. HERITAGE STATUS .................................................................................................................. 32.2. HISTORY ................................................................................................................................. 32.3. DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 42.4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................ 52.5. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................................... 62.6. EXISTING HERITAGE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND CONTROL (DCP) ....................................... 92.7. EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS ........................................................................................... 112.8. RECOMMENDED HERITAGE PRINCIPLES ................................................................................ 122.9. ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACT ..................................................................................... 13

3. CASTLECRAG LOCAL CENTRE ............................................................................................... 213.1. HERITAGE STATUS ................................................................................................................ 213.2. HISTORY ............................................................................................................................... 213.3. DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 233.4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................................................. 243.5. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................................... 243.6. EXISTING HERITAGE MAINTENANCE POLICIES ....................................................................... 283.7. EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS ........................................................................................... 313.8. RECOMMENDED HERITAGE PRINCIPLES ................................................................................ 323.9. ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACT ..................................................................................... 35

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 485. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ....................................................................................................... 496. LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 51

1872 | ARTRAMON/CASTLECARG LOCAL CENTRES


| 1

1. INTRODUCTION In November 2019, Architectural Projects were engaged by Willoughby City Council to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment of the preferred scenarios proposed for the Castlecrag and Artarmon Local Centres in the Willoughby Local Urban Design Study. The aim is to review the heritage significance of both the Castlecrag and Artarmon local centres and to ensure the heritage values are considered and strengthened in the implementation of the draft Willoughby Local Centres Strategy 2036.

1.1. BACKGROUND A key objective of the draft Willoughby Local Centres Strategy 2036 is to promote a network of thriving, attractive and distinctive village centres throughout the Council area. Local Centres are considered critical for the local economy and the amenity of residents. They provide opportunities for housing choice and local jobs close to public transport with easy access for residents and they are important in sustaining a strong sense of community. Castlecrag and Artarmon are two of the 8 centres considered by Council in the draft Local Centres Strategy to 2036. They are the only Local Centres that lie within a Heritage Conservation Area. When finalised, the draft Willoughby Local Centres Strategy 2036 will provide the framework for future planning controls and public domain improvements for the centres. It is based on a detailed review of the outcomes and recommendations in a Planning and Urban Design Study prepared by Architectus Consultants. It recommends additional non-residential and residential floor space for each centre having regard to the principles identified by the Willoughby Local Centres Position Statement, community feedback and testing for economic feasibility. The Strategy sets out a master plan and scenario for growth for Artarmon and Castlecrag. Community consultation included an initial interim public exhibition in December 2017 – January 2018. Feedback from the community for both the Artarmon and Castlecrag local centres in response to the proposed scenarios included a desire for the centres to be refreshed but to retain their village atmosphere and character. The scale and character of local centres, including the protection of heritage value was identified as important. In relation to Castlecrag, the strengthening of the Walter Burley Griffin legacy was considered paramount by the community.

1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES This report aims to provide an analysis of the impact of the proposed growth and change contained in the draft Local Centres Strategy on the heritage significance of the Artarmon and Castlecrag local centres with recommendations for how that significance can be protected and enhanced. This report provides a set of principles to guide future controls for Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan amendments.

1.3. SCOPE OF WORK Confirm the current heritage values evident in both centres. Assess the impact of the proposed scenarios in the draft Local Centre Strategy on these heritage values. Recommend principles to be applied to ensure these heritage values are strengthened in each centre with growth and change.



| 2

1.4. METHODOLOGY The Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the methodology outlined in The Conservation Management Plan by Dr James Semple Kerr (7th Edition 2013). The report complies with the principles of the Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter) and its Guidelines. The methodology used in the evaluation of the place and the assessment of Heritage Impact is that recommended by the Heritage NSW, Department of Premier and Cabinet.

1.5. LIMITATIONS A time frame of 3 weeks was established for the preparation of the draft report, with a further week to finalise the draft. No primary research or physical intervention was undertaken for this report. Fieldwork was carried out by foot, with properties viewed from the public domain.

1.6. IDENTIFICATION OF AUTHORS The report has been prepared by a team consisting of the following key members: Jennifer Hill – Architectural Projects Pty Ltd – Heritage Architect Elizabeth Gibson – Architectural Projects Pty Ltd – Heritage Architect

1.7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Jane Hosie, Strategic Planner, Willoughby City Council Ian Arnott, Planning Manager, Willoughby City Council Elizabeth Fink, Heritage Architect, Willoughby City Council Jacqueline Mullard, Willoughby City Council Jane Gibson, Strategic Planner, Willoughby City Council. This report has been informed by: • Draft Willoughby Local Centres Strategy to 2036 • Willoughby Local Centres Urban Design Study (Architectus) • Artarmon -Past Present and Future compiled by Grace Warner • Building for Nature Walter Burley Griffin and Castlecrag- Walter Burley Griffin Society Incorporated • National Trust Listings- Castlecrag and Artarmon • State Heritage Inventory listings, Wilkes Plaza • Architectural Projects PL, Review of Heritage Conservation Area, Willoughby City Council, 2015 • NSRS & Partners, Statement of Heritage Impact, 98-102 Hampden Road, Artarmon, 2014 • Wayne McPhee and Associates, Heritage Report, Nos. 1-9 Wilkes Plaza Artarmon, 1998.



| 3

2. ARTARMON LOCAL CENTRE 2.1. HERITAGE STATUS

The centre lies partially within Artarmon Heritage Conservation Area C1, listed on Willoughby LEP 2012. The study area Includes a heritage item listed on Willoughby LEP 2012: I11_Group of shops and the Wilkes Avenue Plaza. 1, 3 and 7 Wilkes Avenue and 22 Elizabeth Street, Lots 1 and 2, DP 11092; Lot 1, DP 33702; Lot 1, DP 166628 (Refer Heritage Map)

2.2. HISTORY The Cammeraygal people of the Guringai nation lived in the Willoughby area until the 1820s and are recorded as being in the northern parts of the Sydney region for approximately 5,800 years. By 1830 there were no Aboriginal people following a traditional lifestyle in the area.1 The earliest land grants in the Artarmon area were made in 1793-4, by Major Francis Grose of the NSW Corps. These grants were intended for farming but were used only for grazing. In 1810, Governor Macquarie granted 150 acres to the General- Provost Arthur Gore. Gore then bought out his neighbours and by 1815, he owned most of the land as far west as the Pacific Highway. Gore named his farm “Ardthelmon” after his home in Ireland. The Artarmon shops are located on 25 acres granted to James Roberts in 1794, being portion 297 of the Parish, adjoining Gores’ grant.2 In 1890 the Hornsby-St Leonards railway line opened, and Artarmon Station was opened in 1898, precipitating the subdivision of Artarmon Estate. Artarmon’s first residential subdivision was recorded just after the Artarmon Railway Station opened on 7 July 1898, when Thomas Broughton registered the subdivision of the John Roberts grant for development in October 1898. It covered the area now bounded by Jersey Road to Brand Street to near Buller Road on the west side of the railway line, including Hampden Road, Broughton Road, Francis Street and part of Roberts Street and the Artarmon Library to Brand Street on Elizabeth Street on the east side. Hampden Road was formed in the 1898 subdivision of the Artarmon Estate (Deposited Plan 3489).2 In 1906, 57 Artarmon residents petitioned for a post office. Although Chatswood Post Office, which had opened in 1897, served them, the system was unsatisfactory. The application was unsuccessful, but a mailbox was established at Artarmon railway station in 1907, with three collection times and local storekeepers were authorised to sell stamps. In 1909, James Hall, a storekeeper, was appointed postmaster and the post war boom of 1919–20 resulted in an official post office in 1924. Thanks to the brisk building trade in the 1900s and the ease of rail access, Artarmon became increasingly prosperous, and shops began to appear on Hampden Road near the station. In 1907 there were 152 houses in Artarmon and four business premises. By 1914 there were 11 shops on Hampden Road, and more were in the process of being built.1 The 1920s and early 1930s saw a rapid residential increase. Some two storey flat buildings, dating from the 1930’s, are located closer to the station.3 The western side of the railway line was rezoned in 1969 and the area is now dominated by apartment blocks.

1 Willoughby City Council Library

2 NBRS & Partners, Statement of Heritage Impact, 98-102 Hampden Road, Artarmon, 2014

3 Willoughby Development Control Plan



| 4

Formed from an existing right of way in 1923, Wilkes Avenue was named after S.H Wilkes, a one-time alderman of Willoughby Council. The name of Wilkes Plaza was not settled upon until the 1960s. The Wilkes Plaza buildings were constructed in 1924 by Phillip Robert Cook, and although constructed at the same time, differ in their detail. Intended for retail use, the buildings were also used for dwelling purposes. Ownership of the buildings passed from Cook after his death to a Mrs Mabel Maud Morgan (possibly his daughter) in 1956 and then to Mrs Olwyn Eva Oulford in 1964. An unrecorded purchaser became the owner of the plaza in 1984 which was later purchased by Mr and Mrs F. Bogovic.4

2.3. DESCRIPTION The Artarmon Local Centre comprises a small village space to the northeast of the rail corridor along Wilkes Avenue and a long (over 300m) single sided high street (Hampden Road) opposite the rail corridor. Artarmon Local Centre has a strong village atmosphere and an active resident and business community concerned to retain and enhance its heritage character and sense of place. The Centre sits in a valley, with the land climbing to the west of the railway line and the Wilkes Avenue Plaza at a low point. Hampden Lane, to the rear of the high street, is approximately level with the retail rooftops (two levels above Hampden Rd). The slope results in an approximately 2 metres difference in some part of the Centre from the retail and the street.5 A narrow linear landscape strip runs north south through the centre between the railway line and Hampden road, known as Artarmon Village Green. The rail corridor provides a leafy outlook with manicured landscaping at the train station entries. The local streets are lined with mature street trees that add to the landscape character of the centre.6 The built form character of the centre is generally two-storey street frontage. The two main blocks lie between Jersey Road to Broughton Road and Broughton Road to Francis Road. Two lots 56-128 Hampden Road extend north of Francis Road. South of Jersey Road and north of Hampden Road lie outside the visual setting of the heritage streetscape. Many of the façades are original or respond to the heritage character of the precinct with architectural features and detailing. The retail to the west of the railway line provides awnings for the length of the centre, relatively consistent in height at the first level.6 Shops on the western side of Hampden Rd currently respond to a range of local needs and services such as post office, banking, health services, takeaway food, cafes and restaurants. Wilkes Plaza on the eastern side of the station provides pleasant, popular open space enclosed by cafes, restaurants and shops as well as being a well-used pedestrian thoroughfare. Key attributes of the centre include the train station and pedestrian traffic.6 The Hampden Road shops are a group of retail shop/ residences typical of the early twentieth century with the shops presented as a symmetrical façade spread over the whole group. Variety is provided by alternating façade treatments and parapet treatments. As originally built, these facades have a

4 State Heritage Inventory

5 Architectus Urban Design Study

6 Architectus



| 5

combination of face brickwork and rough cast render that can still be seen on a number of shops in the group. Some facades have been painted and this alters the original balance of the group within the streetscape. The decorative parapets obscure the rear of the sites which are extensively altered and extended. The shopfronts at ground level have all been substantially altered. The shops are raised above the road level with an elevated footpath with a tan herringbone brick paver accessed by ramps from the crossing to the railway station and at the southern end by steps from the road kerb.7 8

The denser pattern of settlement near Artarmon Station is a good example of Interwar flat development providing housing that is well integrated with nearby public transport and commercial opportunities. The well-proportioned flat buildings form a cohesive residential precinct of generally consistent two storey scale, of similar materials and with shared modest embellishments, including decorative brickwork. Such characteristics enhance their unity with the earlier group of Edwardian commercial buildings at Wilkes Plaza.9 The harmonious group of stepping face brick flat buildings in garden settings on either side of Elizabeth Street (near Wilkes Avenue), contribute to the Interwar character of the Conservation Area, and have a high degree of integrity.10 Wilkes Avenue is a small, paved pedestrian shopping precinct of two storey buildings. Wilkes Avenue has an intimate scale and a harmonious variety of Interwar styles, and again the shopfronts have been altered. Although constructed at the same time, all three buildings differ in their detail.7 Within the site are two groups of two-storey masonry terrace shops and a single storey masonry and tiled roof 'cottage' shop. Pedestrian mall and planter boxes provide an intimate and traditional shopping plaza. The buildings are a unified group and make up a well-designed urban streetscape. Buildings include features of polished brass trims to their shop windows and some coloured lead lights.11

2.4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Artarmon Heritage Conservation Area is outstanding for its intactness, with few unsympathetic intrusions occurring. The wide range of largely intact California and Interwar bungalows as well as Federation housing in generally good condition, occur in either groupings of consistent styles or subtle blends of successive periods to produce a mix of interesting and varied streetscapes. The area is significant as a harmonious and unified 1910 – 1920’s lower North Shore residential area whose development relates to the development of the railway.9 The Hampden Road shops, Artarmon railway station group and Wilkes Avenue precinct are historically and physically interlinked and provide a key connection to the history of the area and have the potential to contribute to the community's sense of place.10 The development of the Hampden Road shopping precinct is historically important as it was the first subdivision of the Artarmon Estate, and among the earliest development that occurred in response to

7 Architectural Projects Pty Limited

8 NBRS & Partners, Statement od Heritage Impact, 98-102 Hampden Road, Artarmon, 2014


10 Architectural Projects PL, Review of Heritage Conservation Area, Willoughby City Council, 2015




| 6

the new station at Artarmon. The group developed in support of the residential development of Gore’s Estate and is a key component of the Artarmon Estate. It continues to service the residential suburb. The shops have an aesthetic consistency due to their development in a relatively short period. The decorative facades are typical of the period and rely on the group for their effect. The shops have been degraded by incremental alteration yet retain the potential to be restored. The shops provide an appropriate backdrop to the historic station precinct, and link via Wilkes Avenue to the Artarmon Estate. The group provides an appropriate boundary to the higher density residential zone of West Artarmon.12 The Elizabeth Street and Wilkes Avenue group are integral to the Artarmon Conservation Area and provide a historic link to the station, which was the catalyst for the early development of the suburb in the early 20th Century. The Interwar and early post war flat development in this precinct occurred in response to the opening of the Harbour Bridge in 1932. The scale and character of this area responds to its proximity to the station with a denser development in the form of three storey apartment buildings and two storey shop/ residential buildings. The area provides a sympathetic transition from the predominantly single storey scale of Artarmon Estate to the railway group. The Interwar flat buildings are an important typology not well represented within other Conservation Areas, within the Willoughby Local Conservation Area.13 Numbers 1,3 and 7 Wilkes Avenue and 22 Elizabeth Street have local heritage significance for their association with the early urbanisation of the Artarmon area. Built in the Inter-War style, the buildings are representative of late 1920s design, exhibiting characteristics typical of their era. Aesthetically, the buildings make up a unified group in a well-designed urban streetscape and display good standards of craftsmanship in the brickwork and joinery. Local commercial centres like Wilkes Plaza have provided and continue to provide a social facility for the local working and residential community.12

2.5. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The identification of heritage values in the statement of significance brings with its implications for conservation policy, both constraints and opportunities. The objective of conservation policies is to conserve, as far as is possible, the attributes of the place assessed as being of heritage significance. The Hampden Road shops The Hampden Rd shops are a key element of the Artarmon Heritage Conservation Area and new development must maintain their setting. New development should provide the opportunity to restore facades, canopies and shop fronts. New development should retain and encourage active uses at street level including street level cafes, restaurants, retail, professional services and commercial. New development provides opportunity to enhance the tree canopy on the laneway at the rear of the site and on the side streets. The Hampden Road shops have the capacity to provide substantial increased development to the rear of the sites and provide impetus for a much-needed upgrade of the shopping precinct, and the opportunity to reinforce the original character of the group. This development could occur with the protection and

12 Architectural Projects PL, Review of Heritage Conservation Area, Willoughby City Council, 2015




| 7

enhancement of the historic Hampden Road streetscape. Controls to ensure the upgrade and restoration of early 20th Century fabric are needed as part of any increased development. This development should achieve a balance between heritage and development.12 The streetscape vistas in both directions should be considered and enhanced. A new townhouse development at 110-114 Hampden Road set back 6 metres and 10-15 metres with landscaped balustrades and 1800mm high screen wall extending to the street parapet, is highly visible in the view along the Hampden Road, and provides a poor precedent for development options. Analysis of this development in views along Hampden Rd suggests new development should be located to the rear of the sites, a minimum setback of 25m behind the parapet, and built to a height of 4 storeys above the lane which due to site falls could achieve 5 storeys to an internal street. This to ensure that new development does not impact upon the appreciation of the early 20th Century parapet when viewed from Hampden Road. When viewed from more distant views, new development should be read as a different development in the background that mediates between the façades of the Hampden Road shops and the higher residential towers to the west. New development should exist as two types. Type 1 shop-top development accommodated and concealed behind the existing parapets that extend back approximately between 8-14m from Hampden Road. Type 2 Lane development fronting Hampden Lane can be visible but should not overwhelm the scale of the heritage streetscape. Shop-top development must not dominate or overwhelm the street façade created by the continuous parapeted street facades of the shops and should be screened by the existing tall parapeted facades and should be largely unseen in views along Hampden Road. Parapets should continue to be read against the sky - not against built form. This directly influences the appropriate setback of new development from the street façade (3m). Lane development should occur to the rear of the sites. At street intersections development can be visible but should not overwhelm the scale of the heritage streetscape. Lane development could occur as a continuous strip given the linear nature of the shop development, the height and footprint constraints, and the potential for open space to the east, behind the parapet. A continuous strip development would allow a substantial increase in FSR within a reduced height and would limit the potential loss of views above the current height controls for the site. The public domain along the western side of Hampden Road could benefit from increased amenity for pedestrians (increased width, plating, outdoor dining and crossing points).14 The change in levels to the footpath along Hampden Road creates a disconnection. The balustrade acts as a barrier for pedestrians.14Redevelopment of the precinct should consider resolving these levels.

14 Architectus



| 8

2/2A Elizabeth Street The former Community Library and Community Centre at 2/2A Elizabeth Street provides an opportunity for increased development to a scale, form and detail that would complement the Wilkes Avenue group and the Elizabeth St streetscape.15 Development on the site of the former Community Library and Community Centre at 2/2A Elizabeth Street should take the form of an attached two storey parapeted shop or a free-standing flat building typology. New development should be consistent with existing patterns of the Inter-War flat typology of height and block width, materials, and relationship of solid to void. New development should ensure a wider footpath along the railway corridor to match the existing Wilkes Avenue footpath. New development will be seen against mature vegetation of Railway corridor Proposed Potential Yield SGS Economics and Planning assessed the Artarmon local centre as requiring an additional 3,958sqm by 2041 with an existing surplus retail capacity of 1,111sqm I the centre.16 Consultation and Community feedback The following strengths were identified and summarised in the Urban Design Study: • Strong public support for retaining heritage façades, with recognition of a need for uplift while

retaining character and small scale “village” feel. • A human scale to build form and public domain • Distinctive architecture • A fine grain such as small shop fronts • Distinctive streetscape finishes and furniture • Trees and green spaces • Views and vistas. • Proximity to public transport • Mature landscape along the rail corridor and in local streets • Retail amenity of the shopping centre • Pedestrian connections to the train station and local shops • Wide selection of dining venues including outdoor areas • Topography allowing unobstructed views from roof tops of local shops • Neighbouring high rise residential properties have wide landscaped setbacks and mature street trees • Service lane at the rear of shops provide car parking and loading convenience • There is currently on-street as well as service lane parking in the centre The main challenges and issues identified in the Urban Design Study are summarised as follows: • Concerns with the availability of parking and congestion in the centre, particularly during peak hours

15 Architectural Projects Pty Ltd

16 Architectus



| 9

• Cycling is poorly accommodated. • Lack of attention and quality design in incorporating existing heritage along Hampden Road • The majority opposed to multi-storey development, however, some stakeholders in support of this. • Concern about the current viability of Artarmon as a centre and what height would be required to

make re-development viable • Support for encouraging a mix of uses – supermarket, bakers, butchers etc • Management of limited parking is required • Need for good design • Concern regarding overdevelopment / high rise • Retain and protect the existing shop facades and Village character Snapshots from submissions… “we need Hampden Road to be rejuvenated with cafés, restaurant and other shops – to make it a destination people want to go to. An upgrade is needed as the place is currently rundown and very unattractive.” “Avoid monolithic structures across the length of the street block. Varying building heights and open sight lines between buildings more in keeping the existing residential blocks and green spaces behind retail strip.” “Conservation of existing heritage, and especially Hampden Rd streetscape, should be a priority. Demolition of existing shops with replacement by masonry/glass new construction should not be permitted, as this is contrary to the heritage conservation area principles.”

2.6. EXISTING HERITAGE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND CONTROL (DCP) The Willoughby DCP contains the following policies for the Artarmon Heritage Conservation Area: The relevant Controls are highlighted in bold. Retain and enhance the original form, scale and detail of existing buildings which contribute to the character of streetscapes and the heritage significance of the area; Retain single storey character of the area; Retain characteristic palette of materials of the area, particularly the use of unpainted dark monotone face brick, sandstone bases, painted timber trim and unglazed terracotta roof tiles; Retain intactness of area by controlling alterations and additions, which should be set at the rear and not be visible from the street; Additions must not result in excessive changes in scale, or bulk, or the introduction of visually intrusive and dissimilar materials particularly on prominent sites, including corner sites; Two storey development and second storey additions are inappropriate unless the original streetscape appearance of the building is retained, or in areas adjacent to original two storey flats. Sloping sites may



| 10

enable two storey additions to the rear, which must preserve the predominantly single storey scale of the detached housing and must not offend the individual building’s roof shape or interrupt the streetscape, unified by similarly patterned roofs; New front fences must reconstruct original details or repeat the pattern of low unpainted masonry fences and dense boundary plantings; Retain existing side driveways and rear car parking facilities; The site cover and siting of new development must not result in the loss of significant landscaping either on-site or in verges. In this regard driveways are to be minimal with wheel strips being the preferred solution; Protect mature trees in rear gardens which form a backdrop to the streetscapes; Street plantings and reserve vegetation must be maintained and encouraged, particularly in lesser vegetated streets. Where a site is bushfire prone land landscaping should conform with the performance requirements of the NSW Rural Fire Service ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection’; Existing vistas resulting from the undulating topography must be maintained; and the character and significance of the railway station and the Hampden Road shops as historic elements and as a buffer to the high-rise development of West Artarmon must be respected in any new development. Controls for future development – Artarmon: R2 Residential

Scale Generally: Uniform low scale, detached bungalows,

few semi-detached cottages and flat buildings at station

Storeys: 1 (2nd storey within roof forms or basement acceptable)

FSR: 0.4:1: This figure represents an upper limit to FSR. It takes the existing pattern of development into account and provides for some additional floor area without compromising the significance of the Heritage Conservation Area. Refer to Clause 4.4 (Floor space ratio) of WLEP 2012

Setting/Subdivision Subdivision: Rectilinear subdivision superimposed on

moderate slopes. Average 675m2

15m (12.5m min) frontages. Setbacks: Generally uniform within streets or within

groups of houses.



| 11

Side: 0.9 – 2.5m (driveway) Landscaping: Generous well landscaped front and

rear yards, mature, native and exotic plantings, trees to rear gardens.

Carparking: Single garage to side or rear of dwelling or part of basement.

Front Fencing: Low unpainted face brick Form/Massing Roof: Simple, mainly hipped with some gabled

forms. Façade: Symmetrical or asymmetrical, generally

stepped massing, incorporating porch or veranda

Building Envelope: Roof pitch: 25-30° Eaves Height: 3.5m from floor level Ridge Height: 6.6m from floor level Building height 8m from natural ground level to the vertical distance between ground level (existing) and to the highest point of the building in accordance with Clause 4.3 (Height of buildings) of WLEP 2012

Materials/Details Roof: Unglazed terracotta Marseilles tile.

Strapwork or shingle gable and details. Walls: Red brown, brown or liver smooth face

brick all unpainted face brick o be retained, roughcast to upper wall surfaces.

Windows and Doors: Timber casement or sash windows, some leadlight, timber glazed & panelled entry doors

Joinery and Decorations: Decorative brickwork, use of sandstone/render trim, robust verandah detailing

2.7. EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS

Hampden Road currently has a B2 Local Centre zoning with an FSR of 2:1 and a maximum height of 14m (N2). The Wilkes Avenue Plaza currently has a B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zoning with a maximum FSR of 1.3:1(Q), and max heights of 11m (L). Scope exist to increase these heights marginally and the FSR significantly to 3:1.



| 12

2.8. RECOMMENDED HERITAGE PRINCIPLES The following set of principles have been developed from the opportunities and constraints arising from the heritage significance and the relevant DCP policies and controls. The principles aim to provide clear direction in areas that are central to the conservation of the assessed heritage significance. The Hampden Road shops Retain and enhance the original form, scale and detail of original shop buildings on Hampden Rd; Restore early 20th Century fabric to Hampden Rd facades, canopies and shop fronts. This relates to an approximately 18m zone fronting Hampden Road. Reinforce the original character of the group by restoring or interpreting original detail within the continuous parapeted street facades of the shops. Retain and encourage active uses on Hampden Road. Shop-top development should maintain the historic setting of the Hampden Road shops. Shop-top development must not dominate views of the continuous parapeted façade from Hampden Road. Parapets should continue to be read against the sky when viewed from Hampden Road. Shop-top development should be screened by the tall parapeted facades Additional floors within the shop-top development, should be completely concealed from Hampden Road views by the parapet No structures or landscaping that can be seen from Hampden Road (i.e. higher than the parapet) are permitted behind the parapet. On corner sites, street development should be setback behind the side façade of Hampden Road shops to limit visibility. This relates to Broughton Road, Francis Road and Jersey Road. Lane development must maintain the historic setting of the Hampden Road shops and should not appear to be built on top of the historic shops. Lane development should primarily front the rear lane, and be setback 25 metres from the Hampden Road parapeted shop façades Lane development could occur as 4 storeys above the laneway. Scope exists for 5 storeys within the site due to site falls. Encourage flat roofs to limit height. Lane development should provide a visually recessive neutral backdrop. Lane development should provide strong architectural expression to define the lane as a predominantly pedestrian landscaped mews. Scope exist for an internal pedestrian space within the block. Lane development should be visually recessive and use characteristic or natural materials. The extent of glazing should be limited and detailed to reduce reflective glare A solid to void ratio of 2:3 provides a compatible façade treatment. Landscape links should be provided to make a connection with the high-rise development to the west. Mature trees along the rear lane and west of the rear lane within existing unit development which form a backdrop to the streetscapes should be protected.



| 13

Additional broad canopy street tree planting should be provided at rear lane to enhance landscape character of the Conservation Area Additional broad canopy street tree planting should be provided to side streets (Broughton, Francis and Jersey Rd) to protect the scale of village and enhance the landscape character of the Conservation Area. Above ground carparking should be limited. Carparking should primarily be located below ground. 2/2A Elizabeth Street Complement the Wilkes Avenue group and the Elizabeth St streetscape by matching the scale and bulk of this development. Development should take the form of an attached two storey parapeted shop or a free-standing flat building typology. New development should be consistent with existing patterns of the chosen typology of height and block width, materials, and relationship of solid to void: Development should have a 2-3 storey scale. Simple roofs, mainly hipped or parapeted and stepped massing provide compatible forms. The use of visually intrusive and dissimilar materials should be limited. Rather retain characteristic palette of materials of the area, particularly the use of unpainted dark monotone face brick (red brown, brown or liver smooth face brick), sandstone bases, timber windows, painted timber trim and unglazed terracotta roof tiles. Carparking to be discreet. A wide landscaped footpath along the railway corridor should be provided.

2.9. ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACT The existing Heritage Management Policies and Controls embodied in the WDCP are focussed on the existing areas of low scale residential development which comprise the bulk of the Conservation Area. Because of this, detailed constraints and opportunities relevant to the commercial precincts with potential for increased density have been identified and formulated into a set of specific Heritage Principles to guide their future development in order to protect the heritage values. The heritage impact of the proposed options for development of the Artarmon Town Centre is assessed against the existing DCP Heritage Management Policies and Controls, as well as the recommended Heritage Principles identified in this study. Artarmon Local Centre Two proposals for the redevelopment of the Artarmon Local Centre are assessed below: Scenario 4 and Scenario 5. (Refer Appendices) The proposal is discussed in terms of the Hampden Road shops, the Hampden Lane development sites, the Elizabeth St/Wilkes Avenue shops and the former Library development site. THE FOURTH SCENARIO Scenario 4 was developed following consultation and feedback and retained the existing zoning, introduced a minimum non-residential FSR control, an active ground floor frontage control and a height incentive for lot amalgamation. The indicative master plan for Artarmon details the key features of this



| 14

scenario and shows how future development might be achieved alongside other opportunities for public domain improvements in the centre. Scenario 4 included the following Key Recommendations (LEP and DCP): 1. Increase heights up to 10 storeys and FSRs up to 3.6:1 on amalgamated sites fronting Hampden Rd

and Broughton Rd, close to the train station 2. Increase heights up to 8 storeys and FSRs up to 3.2:1 on amalgamated sites fronting Hampden Rd,

between Francis Rd and Jersey Rd 3. Maintain heights of up to 3 storeys and an FSR of 1.3:1 on the library site (Elizabeth St). Ground floor

uses to be community uses 4. Retain fine grain shopfronts 5. Minimum 8 m podium setback above 2nd storey 6. Additional 3m upper setback to towers fronting Hampden Rd and side streets 7. Separation of blocks consistent with blocks to west to maximise solar access and views Potential Yield Scenario 4 could yield 6,601sqm of non-residential floor space in the Artarmon local centre and 17,499 sqm of residential floor space or approximately 194 residential dwellings. This is well in excess of the additional 3,958sqm required by 2041, as projected by SGS Economics and Planning.17 THE REVISED (FIFTH) SCENARIO Scenario 5 was developed following Council review of Scenario 4. Scenario 5 included the following Key Recommendations (LEP and DCP): 1. Retain the existing fine grain heritage frontage on Hampden Road. Retain existing conservation

zone. Retain and refurbish existing shopfront facades. 2. Increase heights up to 10 storeys, and FSR’s up to 3.6:1 on amalgamated sites fronting Hampden

Road and. Broughton Road, close to the train station. 3. Increase heights up to 8 storeys, and FSR’s up to 3.2:1 on amalgamated sites fronting Hampden

Road, between Francis Road and Jersey Road. 4. Increase heights up to 6 storeys, and FSR’s up to 3:1 on amalgamated sites fronting Hampden

Road. 5. Maintain heights of up to 3 storeys and FSR of 1.3:1 on the library site. Ground floor uses to be

community uses. 6. Minimum 8m podium setback (above 2 storey) to residential apartments fronting Hampden Road. 7. Additional 6m upper level setback to towers fronting Hampden Road and side streets. 8. Buildings separation between towers is to be consistent with the separation distance between

blocks to the west to maximise solar access and views. The main changes between Scenario 4 and Scenario 5 are: • varied and increased podium set back from between 8-14m at the corners and in the centre of the

block.

17 Architectus



| 15

• increased set back to the tower by 3m • reduce the rear car parking zone COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING HERITAGE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND CONTROLS (DCP) DCP Policy/Control Impact Assessment

The character and significance of the railway station and the Hampden Road shops as historic elements and as a buffer to the high-rise development of West Artarmon must be respected in any new development;

In scenario 4, the proposed towers extend the high-rise development east into the Conservation Area and closer to the Hampden Road shops, rather than providing a transition. The proposed scale is dominant in views from Hampden Rd. (refer Architectus 3-D), The proposal reduces the effectiveness of the shops as a buffer to the existing high-rise development. In scenario 5, some change is achieved by the increased and varied set back of the podium. The corner set back has remained the same and hence that impact remains unchanged. Minimal change in bulk results from the increased set back of 3m.

Existing vistas resulting from the undulating topography must be maintained;

In scenario 4, existing vistas of the Hampden Road shops are impacted upon by the bulk and scale of the proposed towers and podium. In scenario 5, the proposed setback provides minimal change to existing vistas from Hampden Road. Despite the increased setback of the towers and the varied setback of the podium the amended development continues to impact on the vistas.

Street plantings and reserve vegetation must be maintained and encouraged, particularly in lesser vegetated streets.

In scenario 4, no provision for additional planting in the lane is proposed. Trees are indicated between towers. Additional planting is proposed in Broughton Road but not Francis or Jersey Roads In scenario 5, minimal planting is proposed in the rear lane.

Generous well landscaped front and rear yards, mature, native and exotic plantings, trees to rear gardens. (Elizabeth St)

In both scenarios, the site of 2/2A Elizabeth St has a well landscaped setting however no additional planting is provided for on site

Retain and enhance the original form, scale and detail of existing buildings which contribute to the character of streetscapes and the heritage significance of the area;

In both scenarios, the original form, scale and detail of the Hampden Rd shops is retained but overwhelmed by the new development which detracts from the streetscape character.



| 16

Scale and bulk of flat buildings at station (Elizabeth St)

In both scenarios, the proposed scale of the development envelope at Elizabeth St is sympathetic to the 2-3 storey scale of the flat buildings and adjoining 2 storey shop. The bulk of the envelope needs to be articulated to reflect the fine grain character of the shops adjoining or alternatively to reflect the stepped form and landscape setting of the flat buildings

Additions must not result in excessive changes in scale, or bulk, particularly on prominent sites, including corner sites; (Hampden Rd shops)

In both scenarios, the proposed additions to the Hampden Road shop buildings results in excessive scale and bulk, particularly on corner sites

Simple roofs, mainly hipped (Elizabeth St)

Both scenarios do not provide this level of detail. While not explicit, scope exists to meet this principle.

Symmetrical or asymmetrical façade, generally stepped massing

Both scenarios do not provide this level of detail. While not explicit, scope exists to meet this principle on the Elizabeth St site.

Retain characteristic palette of materials of the area, particularly the use of unpainted dark monotone face brick, sandstone bases, painted timber trim and unglazed terracotta roof tiles; (Elizabeth St and Hampden Rd shops)


Additions must not result in the introduction of visually intrusive and dissimilar materials particularly on prominent sites, including corner sites;


Red brown, brown or liver smooth face brick (Elizabeth St and Hampden Rd shops)


Timber casement or sash windows, (Elizabeth St and Hampden Rd shops)


Decorative brickwork, use of sandstone/render trim, robust verandah detailing (Elizabeth St and Hampden Rd shops)


Carparking part of basement. Both scenarios do not provide this level of detail. While not explicit, scope exists to meet this principle.



| 17

ASSESSMENT AGAINST RECOMMENDED HERITAGE PRINCIPLES DEVELOPED IN THIS REPORT Heritage Principle Impact Assessment THE HAMPDEN ROAD SHOPS

Retain and enhance the original form, scale and detail of original shop buildings on Hampden Rd

In both scenarios, the original form, scale and detail of existing buildings is retained but overwhelmed by the new development which detracts from the streetscape character. The use of podium typology links the new large-scale developments to the historic Hampton Rd façades which overpowers the fine grain of the existing shops.

Restore early 20th Century fabric to Hampden Rd facades, canopies and shop fronts

Both scenarios do not provide this level of detail, but scope exists to achieve this principle.

Reinforce the original character of the group by restoring or interpreting original detail within continuous parapeted street facades of the shops

Both scenarios do not provide this level of detail, but scope exists to achieve this principle.

Retain and encourage active uses on Hampden Road

In both scenarios, active uses on Hampden Road are retained

New development must maintain the historic setting of the Hampden Road shops.

In both scenarios, the historic setting of the Hampden Road shops is overwhelmed by the scale, bulk and proximity of the new development

New development must not dominate views of the continuous parapeted façade from Hampden Rd

In both scenarios, new development dominates views of the continuous parapeted façade from Hampden Rd

Parapets should continue to be read against the sky when viewed from Hampden Road

In both scenarios, parapets are read against the podium and towers when viewed from Hampden Road

New development should be screened by the tall parapeted facades

In both scenarios, new development is not screened by the parapeted facades

Additional floors within the 25m setback from the parapet, should be completely concealed from Hampden Road views by the parapet

In both scenarios, the podium and tower elements occur within the 25m setback and dominate views of the Hampden Rd facade

No structures or landscaping that can be seen from Hampden Road (i.e. higher than the parapet) are permitted behind the parapet

In both scenarios, the structures and landscaping appear behind the parapet



| 18

On corner sites, new development should be setback behind the side façade of Hampden Road shops to limit visibility

In both scenarios, the new development is minimally setback behind the side façades of Hampden Road shops

New visible development should primarily front the rear lane, and be setback 25 metres from the Hampden Road parapeted shop façades

In both scenarios, the new development has minimal frontage to the lane. In scenario 4, the podium is setback 8m from Hampden Road and the tower is setback 11m from Hampden Road In scenario 5, the podium is setback 8-14m on the corners and the central block from Hampden Road and the tower is setback 14m from Hampden Road

New visible development could occur as 4 storeys above the laneway

In both scenarios, the new development occurs as 8 storeys above the lane being 2 storey podium and 4-6 storey tower which exceeds the recommended 4 storey height.

Encourage flat roofs to limit height

In both scenarios, flat roofs are proposed to limit height

New visible development should provide a continuous visually recessive neutral backdrop

In both scenarios, new development is visually obtrusive due to the scale of 8-10 storeys

Lane development to provide strong architectural expression to define lane as mews

In scenario 4, the extensive carparking and stepped forms to the rear lane do not provide a strong architectural expression In scenario 5, the changes still envisage the lane as primarily a car park

Provide landscape links to make a connection with the high-rise development to the west

Both scenarios provide landscape links between the two blocks, but these are disrupted by carparking at the lower level.

Protect mature trees along rear lane and within existing unit development which form a backdrop to the streetscapes

In scenario 4, no provision for additional planting in the lane is proposed. In scenario 5, minimal planting is proposed in the rear lane

Provide additional broad canopy street tree planting at rear lane to enhance landscape character of the Conservation Area

In scenario 4, no provision for additional planting in the lane is proposed. In scenario 5, minimal planting is proposed in the rear lane

Provide additional broad canopy street tree planting to side streets (Broughton,

In both scenarios, additional planting is proposed in Broughton Road but not Francis or Jersey Roads



| 19

Francis and Jersey Rd) to protect the scale of village and enhance the landscape character of the Conservation Area

Carparking to be part of basement

In scenario 4, carparking appears to occur on grade at Hampden Lane In scenario 5, reduced carparking appears to occur on grade at Hampden Lane

2/2A ELIZABETH STREET Complement the Wilkes Ave group and the Elizabeth St streetscape by matching the scale and bulk of this development

In both scenarios, the proposed 3 storey scale could be achieved by careful design of the façade to complement the height, setback and bay widths of the adjoining shop building

Development should take the form of an attached two storey attached shop or a free-standing flat building typology

In both scenarios, the proposal shows one floor of non-residential development built to street alignment and two floors of residential development setback from Elizabeth St. This does not respond adequately to the Wilkes Avenue model of two storey shop adjacent. The proposal should match the wall height and alignment of the facade of the adjoining shop.

New development should be consistent with existing patterns of the chosen typology of height and block width, materials, and relationship of solid to void

Neither scenario provides this level of detail, but scope exists to achieve this principle with careful design.

Development should have 2-3 storey scale

In both scenarios, the proposal has a 3-storey scale which is appropriate, provided the Elizabeth St façade is designed to respond sympathetically to the adjoining shop in height and apparent number of storeys

Simple roofs, mainly hipped or parapeted and stepped massing

Neither scenario provides this level of detail. While not explicit, scope exists to meet this principle.

Do not introduce visually intrusive and dissimilar materials, rather retain characteristic palette of materials of the area, particularly the use of unpainted dark monotone face brick (red brown, brown or liver smooth face brick),




| 20

sandstone bases, timber windows, painted timber trim and unglazed terracotta roof tiles

Carparking to be discreet Neither scenario provides this level of detail. While not explicit, scope exists to meet this principle.

Provide a wide landscaped footpath along the railway corridor


Summary: In both scenarios, the original form, scale and detail of the historic Hampden Rd shops are retained but overwhelmed by the scale, bulk and proximity of the new development. New development dominates views of the continuous parapeted façade from Hampden Rd and detracts from the streetscape character. The carparking and stepped forms to Hampden Lane do not provide a strong architectural or landscape expression and envisage the lane primarily as a car park. The extension of the shops as a podium links the fine grain of the shops with the dominant scale of the proposed development. While Scenario 5 has increased the set back from Hampden Road shops, the typology of two free standing residential blocks of considerable height (8-10 storey) on a podium, still dominates the Hampden Road shops. An alternate typology of linear development to a height of 4 storeys to the laneway with the potential of 5 storeys due to site fall can achieve considerable density with far less impact on the setting. Two separate linear forms provide the opportunity for a mid-block street link. The use of the existing lane and a proposed mid-block street link provides permeability of the site. Scope exists to locate higher towers to sites beyond the Hampden Rd shops (130-136/142 Hampden Rd and 44 Hampden Rd) where they do not sit directly behind the Hampden Rd shops. These sites can act as ‘book ends’ with increased height and density to frame rather than dominate views of the continuous parapeted façade against the sky. The proposed height of approximately 8 storeys would be determined by amenity impacts. The proposed 3 storey scale of the Elizabeth Street site development could be achieved by careful design of the façade to complement the height, setback and bay widths of the adjoining shop building



| 21

3. CASTLECRAG LOCAL CENTRE 3.1. HERITAGE STATUS

Part of the site lies within Griffin Conservation Area C4 listed on Willoughby LEP 2012. The Local Centre is also in the vicinity of Willoughby Park Heritage Conservation Area C12 (Refer Heritage Map ) The Local Centre is in the vicinity of items listed on Willoughby LEP 2012: • I48 Community Centre, 10 The Postern, Lot 143, DP 17416 • I13 House at 136 Edinburgh Road, Lot 1, DP 847190 • I15 House at 140 Edinburgh Road, Lot B, DP 373118 • I16 House at 144 Edinburgh Road, Lot 61, DP 11138; Lot 1, DP 315876

3.2. HISTORY The Cammeraygal people of the Guringai nation lived in the Willoughby area until the 1820s and are recorded as being in the northern parts of the Sydney region for approximately 5,800 years. By 1830 there were no Aboriginal people following a traditional lifestyle in the area.18 Middle Harbour remained Crown land until 1856, when portions were offered in a public auction. Much of this land would be utilised for farming, particularly by Chinese market gardeners, who leased land for orchards, and large tracts of land being purchased by Sydney transport companies for future development. The financial crash of 1892 saw landholders forced into liquidation. These large land allotments were assigned to the Association of North Sydney Debenture Holders Limited, who would in turn auction the land of to the Greater Sydney Development Association.19 Walter Burley Griffin and his architect wife Marion Mahony Griffin founded the Greater Sydney Development Association (GSDA) in 1920 and set about establishing a residential development that was sympathetic with the natural environment, and in sharp contrast to the red roofs and grid streets that characterised Sydney at the time.20 “to safeguard the character of the improvements and the preservation of the characteristic natural beauties”.21 In 1921, the GSDA purchased 650 acres at Middle Harbour, including the south west part of Castlecrag. Griffin designed the Castlecrag Estate, as it became known, in sympathy with the natural environment, creating bushland reserves that preserved the major landforms and rock outcrops; foreshore reserves; a delightful network of walkways; and roads that followed the contours and respected the landforms.20 An auction was held on 26 November 1921 for 'The Parapet subdivision of the Scenic Marine Harbour suburb 'Castlecrag". By the end of 1922, six houses had been constructed, with shops and an estate office constructed to the estate entryway. The shop sites brought from 180-225 pounds each. Covenants demanded buildings be constructed of stone, concrete or tiles and requirements that only one building per site was not applied to the six shop sites. No shop to be erected on any other lots except Lots 1-6.

18 Willoughby City Council Library

19 Heritage 21, Leslie, Esther & Willoughby (N.S.W.: Municipality). Bicentennial Community Committee (1988). The suburb of Castlecrag: a community history. Published for

the Bicentennial Community Committee of Willoughby Municipal Council by Management Development Publishers, Sydney. pg. 5-8)


21 Building for Nature



| 22

Further sales were acquired when Marion organised a sales campaign in 1924 and the Griffin's moved to Castlecrag in 1925.22 Plans for four shops (Griffin Centre) were approved by Griffin and built in 1924, with “an attractive bungalow aspect”.23 Additions to the east of the Griffin Centre have occurred. In 1925, twelve Shop Sites were advertised for sale. “These splendid elevated sites present a most unusual opportunity.” The GSDA Estate Office, a small single storey stone building was built on Lot 2. It was demolished in the 1970s.22 In 1926 Walter and Marion Griffin bought, in their own names, two portions that adjoined the eastern boundary of the Castlecrag Estate. This they called the Haven Estate. Griffin extended the same principle of contoured road design, reserves etc. to the subdivision of this land. The houses were designed to harmonise with the landscape and were built of sandstone quarried from the site and/or knit lock, a concrete building block patented by Griffin that had a crushed sandstone finish. Many sites had a house plan attached and the houses were carefully located on the sites with stepped setbacks from the road to respect the views and privacy of other houses. Most houses had flat roofs to maximise the retention of views and covenants controlled all development. Fourteen houses designed by Griffin were built at Castlecrag but evidence of over forty house designs exists. GSDA exercised control of design and siting of buildings through covenants affecting the construction materials used, number of buildings on the site, setbacks, design of fences, advertising signs, and required contribution to upkeep of public reserves, to safeguard the general high-class residential character of the area. Eric Nicholls varied the covenants to allow pitched roofs and brick walls etc. Shops on the north side of Edinburgh Road are located on the site of the former 2FC radio station transmitter, which was reserved for commercial purposes in 1928-29. All the lots were sold by 1938, but the first shops were not completed until 1941-42 and the last were opened in 1950.24 The squash courts were designed by Chris Sorensen and built 1959.25 Originally the site of Castlecrag's first service station, proposals for a large shopping complex on the south side of Edinburgh Road, west of the GSDA Estates, generated community opposition regarding its scale and style at the entrance to the suburb. The plans were referred to the Local Government Appeals Tribunal, which required a significant reduction in scale. The Quadrangle Shopping Village was formally opened on 15 August 1978.26

22 Building for Nature

23 Walter Burley Griffin Society

24 Willoughby District Historical Society

25 Walter Burley Griffin Society

26 Architectural Projects Pty LTD, Review of Heritage Conservation Area, Willoughby City Council, 2015



| 23

3.3. DESCRIPTION Griffin’s main aims in designing the Estate were to get away from the traditional suburb with its rectangular grid street pattern, imposed upon the landscape without thought for topography, and to demonstrate that architecture could be subordinate to and harmonious with the landscape. To Griffin, architecture, the site planning, town planning and landscape design were inseparable. Any structure had to fit into the overall landscape of the area - being harmonious rather than obtrusive. He achieved this integration through his design philosophy – narrow winding roads following contours, linked open space networks, lack of fences, unobtrusive houses, retention of bushland in the reserves, walkways, nature strips and road islands. Roads are unobtrusive because of the proliferation of natural vegetation, their winding nature, the grass and bushland verges, the sandstone kerbs and narrow widths. All these aspects, the natural landforms of rock outcrops, cliffs, gullies etc. and the rock cuttings for the road and also the culverts are extremely important and of great significance in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. The Griffin road layout has been altered at the Postern where a carpark was established. The lane network and subdivision have been altered, and one pedestrian pathway connecting to the Cortile reserve has been lost. Within residential properties, the lack of front fences and separate garages retain the transition from street to reserve that Griffin intended by minimal building within the first 10m zone of the property. The intent was that the houses and shops were to exist in the bush landscape without the artificiality of property boundaries. The form of houses proposed by Griffin was single storey, or in rare cases two storey buildings based on a series of projecting wings radiating from the central area and fireplace. The Willoughby incinerator forms a useful precedent where Griffin dealt with larger scale structures by breaking the scale into a stone base and articulated forms. Elevational treatment tended towards strong horizontals because of a design intention to integrate with the landscape. This is reinforced by the use of masonry blocks with strong horizontal window lintels and flat roofs. The finishes tended toward natural materials such as stone and the use of colours which reflect the bushland setting.27 The Griffin Centre is a group of four shops built in 1924 which reinforce part of the curve of the original roadway. The original bungalow detailing, evident in the early photographs, has been eroded through incremental changes. An additional shop has been added to the east. The Quadrangle The building is single storey with a pitched roof. An internal courtyard provides some articulation to the long façades. The site fall of 1 storey to the rear provides under cover parking. The car entry provides separation from 116-118 Edinburgh road. 116-118 Edinburgh Road between Griffin Centre and the Quadrangle The buildings are two storeys with an internal court which benefits from the car entry.




| 24

The scale is appropriate to the Griffin Centre (120 Edinburgh Road) and consistent with the northern shops 73-93 Edinburgh Road. 73-93 Edinburgh Road The buildings are two storeys and comprises three separate buildings which contributes to the village character. A bronze bust of WB Griffin by sculptor Judit Englert-Shead and donated to the Castlecrag Community by the Newell Shead family was unveiled by mayor Pat Reilly in October 1997. It is located in the garden beside the footpath.28

3.4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Castlecrag and Haven Estates are outstanding early examples of subdivision which respected the landscape character of an area created community environments and provided shared views. This process was initiated by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin who were influential architects in the United States and Australia and were known for their appreciation of the opportunities provided by landscape which was embodied in their plan for Canberra. The significance of the estates is heightened by the extant works of the Griffins which are nationally and internationally recognised. The estates are a larger more complete demonstration of principles Griffins had developed in the United States and their first seven years in Australia. These innovative principles involved subdivision, contoured roads embedded in the sandstone topography and engineering processes that were aimed at conserving the sandstone terrain, stream systems, indigenous bushland and harbour foreshore, and provided extensive reserves and walkways through the estates that created an integrated open space network. The distinctive nomenclature the Griffins gave to the reserves and roads expresses the castle-like quality of the Castlecrag peninsula. The estates embody the sense of community and social connection from the Griffins, the first investors and the Griffins’ friends to a continuing community with a strong sense of connection to the place. Long established community facilities include the Haven Amphitheatre, Community Centre, Griffin shops, tennis courts, reserves and walkways. The estates are unique in their application of small lots in a spectacular harbour setting with public vistas and filtered views providing the suburban ideal subordinated to the landscape.29

3.5. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The identification of heritage values in the statement of significance brings with its implications for conservation policy, both constraints and opportunities. The objective of conservation policies is to conserve, as far as is possible, the attributes of the place assessed as being of heritage significance. The Edinburgh Road shops have the capacity to provide some increased development and provide impetus for a much-needed upgrade of the shopping precinct, and the opportunity to reinforce the original intention of the group. This development could occur in association with the protection of the





| 25

Griffin centre. New development should achieve both a careful balance between heritage and development. While it is acknowledged that the development of Edinburgh Road increased density beyond the single storey village character identified in the current Griffin Centre, the low 1 and 2 storey village retains the dominance of the bush setting. New development should not dominate or overwhelm the existing village character of the shops, their relationship to the Griffin centre or the landscape setting. The Edinburgh Road streetscape vistas in both directions should be enhanced by additional planting. The village character is created by a grouping of separate buildings as opposed to a continuous shopping strip Active uses at street level including street level cafes, restaurants, retail, professional services and commercial should be retained and enhanced. Subdivision The Griffins original subdivision pattern within the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area should be retained. The original Griffin Subdivision and the planned network of pathways and reserves should be reinforced and interpreted. The original Griffin road island planting should be retained or interpreted. The lost pathway linking to Cortile Reserve should be reinstated. Griffin pathway as vegetated pedestrian way should be retained and reinstated. Landscape Setting New development should be screened from the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area by landscape screening. The existing mature trees within the landscape zone should be retained and supplemented. A strong landscape framework for the town centre should be created including - - landscape at entry points and corners - landscape as canopy backdrops - landscape as street planting/perimeter planting All existing landscape components, landscape links within street blocks street planting and trees on private properties should be protected and enhanced. Explore possibility of providing vistas through the commercial block site to the landscape. The landscape setting for the shops provided by the landscaped zone approximately 11m wide to the rear of the shops should be retained and protected. The existing landscape canopy within the retail block, and to the perimeter of the block should be retained and protected. The landscape backdrop to the surrounding houses located within the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, particularly no’s 5-11 The Postern, should be considered. A tree replacement strategy (succession planting) should be implemented to ensure a dense canopy is maintainted.



| 26

Village Character The Griffin design principle of subordinating buildings to the natural landscape should guide new development. The predominant scale and form of the original built form (Griffin shops) should be retained and respected. The natural topography should be respected. Buildings should be designed in the round with flat roofs which reflects the Griffin Precedent and reduces scale. Precedents that relate to larger scale buildings set sensitively within landscape settings, such as Sydney School examples, could inform such an approach. The stone podium characteristics of Griffin’s larger scale development, such as the Willoughby incinerator could inform such an approach. Material Recessive colours and materials to blend with landscape: stone, concrete etc should be considered. Materials that blend inconspicuously with the remnant bushland, and not create strong visual contrasts (such as with white finishes) should be considered. Carparking should be visually discreet and ideally concealed below ground. Griffin Centre Shops 1924 (120 Edinburgh Rd) This site is within the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. Listing as a Heritage Item should be considered. The original 1924 shops (Griffin Centre shops) are a key element of the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, approved by Griffin, and should be retained and conserved. They express the Griffin vision for the Castlecrag village character. The scale of the shops is a key element of the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. New development should maintain the existing scale of the Griffin shops by restricting new development to the ridge height of the existing building. New development should be consistent with existing patterns of height and block width, materials, and relationship of solid to void. Scope exists to reinforce the curve of the original roadway and extend the Griffin Centre. The curved form, roof and overhang should be respected and continued. No constraints apply to one extra shop that has been added to east. The history and significance of the shops should be interpreted. New development provides the opportunity to restore facades, canopies and shop fronts and reinstate the bungalow detail as per early photos to assist with understanding its significance as “an attractive bungalow aspect”. Scope exists to reinstate the landscape boundary and interpret alignment of original Griffin roadway. Scope exists to reinforce the original Postern road alignment as per Griffin plan with landscape island. The existing landscape backdrop should be protected. Shops, 116-118 Edinburgh Road (between Griffin Centre and Quadrangle) This site is within Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, but the buildings do not have heritage value. The sites can be redeveloped.



| 27

The site provides a sensitive transition between Quadrangle site and Griffin Centre Shops, the existing landscape backdrop at rear of site should be maintained and enhanced. A fine grain active frontage should be provided. Quadrangle Site (100 Edinburgh Rd) The Quadrangle site exists as a low scale development with lack of cross through links. The Quadrangle site has the capacity to provide some increased development with minimal impact and provide impetus for a much-needed upgrade of the shopping precinct. The opportunity exists to reinforce the original intention of the group as a low scale development and addresses the lack of cross through links. The development should read as group of shops - not apartment block The site is important as a gateway site providing an opportunity to establish the unique character of Castlecrag and needs to provide a landscape entry to the suburb. Landscape needs to dominate the scale of new development. New development should not encroach on the landscape zone at the rear of the shops. New development should retain and protect the landscape setting for the shops provided by the landscaped zone 11m wide to the rear. New development provides an opportunity to enhance the landscape canopy. The landscape setting to houses on the Postern, within the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area should be maintained. Houses read against the canopy within the 11m landscape zone at the rear and the existing ridge of the Quadrangle Shopping Centre. Higher built form should be stepped back to maintain this setting. There is an opportunity for the recognition/ interpretation of the boundary of the Griffin Subdivision which runs through the site, and the extension of the Griffin Philosophy beyond that boundary. Given the extent of the expanded street and café frontages, alternatives to a recessed courtyard should be explored. Site through links have the potential to articulate the scale of the block and provide permeability. The length of new development on the Quadrangle site should be articulated to relate to the scale of adjacent housing in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. A fine grain active frontage should be provided. Squash Court Site, 1959 (3 The Postern) This site is within Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. The site could be redeveloped but not at greater scale. The transition to residential at 5 The Postern could be improved. Landscape screen and backdrop to the land should be considered. New development on the squash court should be no higher than the existing SW façade Scope exists to articulate the façade to reduce its current impact Edinburgh Road north shops (73-93 Edinburgh Rd) New development should read as a group of shops - not an apartment block Lots 73-77 Edinburgh Road, as the entry to the suburb, provide an opportunity to reflect and project the unique landscape character of Castlecrag Mature trees within the block should be protected and enhanced.



| 28

The Edinburgh Road shops have the capacity to provide some increased development and provide impetus for a much-needed upgrade of the shopping precinct, and the opportunity to reinforce the original intention of the group. Edinburgh Road north residential (95-103 Edinburgh Rd) The site provides landscape setbacks and landscape backdrop. Landscaping of corner sites should be maintained Two storey flat roof building in the landscape would retain the setting, provided by the landscaped front setbacks and side setbacks, with no fencing to Edinburgh Rd Canopy planting at rear of blocks should be provided. Minimise impact of parking. The site is important as a transition to the low scale of the residential suburb. Consultation and Community feedback The following strengths were identified and summarised in the Urban Design Study: • Consider the redevelopment of the Quadrangle • Retain existing mature tree canopy • Investigate potential to redevelop residential properties on Chandler Lane • Improve pedestrian and cycling conditions • Consider the redevelopment potential of the Griffin Centre and the office block at 3 The Postern • Consider future development of adjacent residential properties on Edinburgh Rd. Proposed Potential Yield The SGS study projected that the Castlecrag centre would require an additional 1,973sqm of employment space by 2041.

3.6. EXISTING HERITAGE MAINTENANCE POLICIES The Willoughby DCP contains the following policies for the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area: The relevant controls are highlighted in bold. Retain and where possible reinstate the original subdivision pattern and linked system of public reserves and pedestrian pathways. Retain road islands, rock cuttings, sandstone retaining walls, kerb and guttering, grass road verges and bushland nature strips; Maintain and where possible reinstate natural topography, landforms, the natural ecology/drainage ways and ponding areas, and vegetation types; Buildings should be placed to respect natural features which historically has resulted in a variety of setbacks. This principle should be adhered to in new development. Permit new development which fits in with the original subdivision pattern, and which blends with and preserves as much as possible of the natural landscape, its remnant bushland and rocky terrain; New development must carefully follow the contours of the land to minimise bulk, and cutting and infilling;



| 29

The height, scale, bulk, massing and proportion, site cover, location and visibility of new development must be such that: - built forms are subordinate to the natural landscape; - the spacing between buildings and rhythms of the streetscapes are retained, or opened up to create vistas of the natural landscape; - primary views from nearby and adjoining dwellings and public reserves, roadways, pathways and drainage reserves are not obstructed; - under croft areas are not visually intrusive in the landscape when viewed from the water or the land; - buildings are highly articulated in plan and elevation; and - amenity of public reserves is maintained as public open space. Materials and colours must blend inconspicuously with the predominant colours of the local bushland; Significant heritage items including landscape must not be encroached upon; Carparking, including garages are to be designed and sited to retain the unique character of the usually well vegetated narrow winding roadways and public open spaces; No fences, screens or gates other than very low fencing (300mm in height) forward of the building line; No fences or screens adjoining public reserves and pathways: - indigenous vegetation to be used to achieve privacy; and - where special security requirements can be demonstrated, fencing to a maximum of 1200mm may be permitted to be constructed of timber posts or metal frame posts with light weight open mesh infill. Acceptable styles include arris rail or piped rail and diagonal mesh, horse wire or childproof weldmesh in unpainted galvanised finish. Where bushfire prone land is identified non-combustible materials must be used; Locally indigenous vegetation is to be used for landscaped areas, including private open space adjoining Griffin walkways, reserves and public open space; and where a site is bushfire prone land, landscaping should conform with the performance requirements of the NSW Rural Fire Service ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection’.30 Controls for future development – Griffin E4 Environmental Living

Scale Generally: Low scale, maintain and reinstate predominance of

native landscape over built form. Ensure no encroachment by new buildings into public vistas.

Storeys: Generally, 1:1.5, maximum 2 FSR: The maximum gross floor area (GFA) of a building on land

that is in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area is the GFA specified in column 2 of the table. This figure represents an upper limit to GFA. It takes the existing pattern of development into account and provides for




| 30

some additional floor area without compromising the significance of the Heritage Conservation Area.

Column 1 Column 2 Site Area (square metres) Floor Space ratio (:1) Under 400 0.45 400-500 0.40 501-600 0.36 601-700 0.34 701-800 0.32 801-900 0.30 901-1000 0.28 1001-1100 0.26 1101-1300 0.25 Over 1300 0.24

Refer to Clause 4.4A (exceptions to Floor Space Ratio) of WLEP 2012

Massing: The scale and massing of new development is to respect the Griffins’ objective to have all built forms subservient to the landscape. Development in the vicinity of Heritage Items shall respect the scale and massing of those items and ensure public view corridors to them.

Setting/Subdivision Subdivision: Retain and enhance original griffin subdivision and its

intention with emphasis on the natural qualities, views and topography of the site.

Setbacks: Natural features, public walkways or existing heritage building: 3m Street: variable, typically 6-10m Public reserves: min 10m from the rear boundary with reserve. One side: 3m Facades visible to pathways or reserves are to incorporate setbacks stepped in plan to create articulation and reduce visual bulk

Landscaping: Informal, heavily landscaped front gardens dominated by indigenous shrubs and trees. Maintain, enhance and protect indigenous landscape, natural features, landforms & vegetation (For bushfire prone land refer to Management Policies)

Carparking: Small scale, car parking behind building line where possible, else 5m setback for carports. Reduce impact of cars through the use of lightweight open carports and



| 31

absorbent surface materials (not interfering with public view from street) Open hard stand parking spaces or lightweight open sided carports, with absorbent ground surface materials preferred rather than enclosed garages to reduce the impact of cars.

Preservation of views from public places:

Retain public views of waterways and other significant outlooks

Fencing: Refer to Management Policies Gates behind Building alignment:

Behind building alignment, no gate or ‘see through’ /open mesh form gates to maximum 1200mm is referred. Gates permitted on boundaries adjoining public pathways and reserves. (Refer to Management Policies)

Form/Massing Roof: Simple flat roofs or low-pitched hipped roof forms in

recessive neutral colours Façade: Stepped, well-articulated elevations, projecting bays

asymmetrical building forms, horizontal emphasis. Avoid use of strong vertical elements such as fenestrations or columns.

Building Envelope: Roof pitch: 2.5° Height 8m max in accordance with Clause 4.3 (Height of buildings) of WLEP 2012. Ground floor plane: follow contours of landform. Heights relative to ground level (existing)

Substantial Alterations: Development involving substantial alterations is to achieve side boundary setbacks that open up vistas or views between houses

Materials/Details Roof: Bitumen, corrugated metal sheet, terracotta tile or

concrete tile in recessive neutral colours Walls: Stone render or timber in recessive neutral colours

which blend inconspicuously with the predominant colours of the local bushland. Materials used to enhance horizontal emphasis

Windows and Doors: Horizontal emphasis to groups of windows Joinery and Decorations: Horizontal emphasis

3.7. EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS

Current Zoning: B1 Neighbourhood Centre, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential. Current Height of Buildings: The 11m (B1) Neighbourhood centre zone is subject to an 11m maximum height (L) to the north of Edinburgh Rd and 9m (J) to the south. The R3 Medium Density to the north of Edinburgh Rd is also 9m (J).



| 32

Current FSR: The Quadrangle Plaza and Griffin Centre has a maximum FSR of 1:1(N) which allows height of building 9m(J). The north of Edinburgh Rd in the B1 zone is FSR of 1.3:1(Q) has maximum height of 9m(L), while the R3 Medium Density block to the east is an FSR of up to 0.7:1, with height of 9m(J). Scope exist to increase these heights marginally and to increase the FSR.

3.8. RECOMMENDED HERITAGE PRINCIPLES The following set of principles have been developed from the opportunities and constraints arising from the heritage significance and the relevant DCP policies and controls. The principles aim to provide clear direction in areas that are central to the conservation of the assessed heritage significance. Generally New development should not dominate or overwhelm the existing village character of the shops and their relationship to the Griffin Centre. Subdivision Retain the village character of a grouping of separate buildings. Retain and encourage active uses at Edinburgh Road. Retain, reinstate or interpret the original Griffin subdivision pattern and linked system of pedestrian pathways on the site within the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. Reinstate original Griffin road island planting (and interpret roadway) at the corner of Edinburgh Road and the Postern. Reinstate or interpret the original Griffin subdivision and pedestrian pathway linking to Cortile Reserve. Reinforce/reinstate Griffin pathways as vegetated pedestrian ways and meaningful links from Edinburgh Road shops to The Postern Landscape Setting Create a strong landscape framework for the town centre with locally indigenous vegetation: - landscape at entry points and corners - landscape as canopy backdrops - landscape as street planting/perimeter planting, reinforcing Griffin Subdivision Preserve existing landscape components, protect and enhance street planting and trees on private properties New development must retain and protect the landscape setting for the shops provided by the 11m wide landscaped zone to the rear of the southern shops. New development provides an opportunity to enhance the landscape canopy within the block, and to the perimeter of the block with locally indigenous vegetation. Protect the landscape backdrop to no’s 5-11 The Postern. New development must retain and protect the landscape setting for the shops provided by the landscaped zone to the rear of the northern shops. Village Character Respect Griffin design principle of subordinating buildings to the natural landscape Ensure that new developments respect the predominant scale and form of the area and are sympathetic to original built form (Griffin shops)



| 33

Built form to be subordinate to the landscape, and occur below the canopy, Employ simple flat roofs to reduce scale on Edinburgh Road sites, or low-pitched hipped roof forms that respond to the 1924 Griffin shops. Built form to respond to topography, by stepping to minimise bulk. Restrict under croft areas and minimise cutting and filling. Provide stepped, well-articulated elevations, with horizontal emphasis. Horizontal emphasis to elevations, fenestration, and details. Street based activity is preferred to internal plazas. Material Use materials to blend with predominant colours of the local bushland (sandstone, concrete etc.) and recessive neutral colours. Carparking must be visually discreet Develop a carparking strategy for each block, to limit entry and exit points and enable on grade carparking spaces at corner of The Postern and Edinburgh Rd, and at the corner of Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Rd to be relocated to allow landscaping of these key areas. Griffin Centre Shops 1924 (120 Edinburgh Rd) Retain and conserve the original four 1924 shops Restore facades, canopies and shop fronts of the original four shops as per early photos. New development must maintain the existing scale defined by the ridge height of the existing development. New development should reinforce the curve of the original roadway by continuing curved form, roof and overhang New development should be consistent with existing patterns of height and block width, materials, and relationship of solid to void. New development to interpret original lot layout as per 1921 subdivision of ‘The Parapet’ Carparking must be visually discreet Provide street planting along The Postern and interpret the alignment of the original Griffin road Reinforce the original Postern road alignment as per Griffin plan with landscape island Protect and enhance the existing landscape zone at rear of the shops to provide locally indigenous canopy backdrop Prepare an Interpretation Strategy of the four original Griffin Centre Shops. Shops, 116-118 Edinburgh Road (between Griffin Centre and Quadrangle) Could be redeveloped but not at greater scale Provide a transition between Griffin Centre Shops (1 storey) and Quadrangle site (3 storey) Provide fine grain active frontage Protect and enhance the existing landscape zone at rear of the shops to provide locally indigenous vegetation canopy backdrop for new development Quadrangle Site (100 Edinburgh Rd) New development (2 storeys above Edinburgh Road with a setback 3rd storey) to provide an upgrade of the shopping precinct and reinforce the original intention of the group. New development to read as group of shops - not as an apartment building.



| 34

Articulation of the façade can provide views through to landscape. Explore alternatives to the existing recessed courtyard that interprets the Griffin Subdivision and allows views to the landscape zone beyond. Landscape canopy of street trees and needs to dominate scale of new development. Provide a substantial locally indigenous landscape planting at corner Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley way Retain, protect and enhance the landscaped zone approx. 11m wide to the rear with additional plantings of with locally indigenous canopy trees. New development must not encroach on the landscape zone at the rear of the shops. Recognise and interpret the boundary of the Griffin Subdivision which runs through the site. (refer 1921 Subdivision) Scope exist to articulate the lower ground to the rear of the site due to site falls. Provide fine grain active frontage. Reinforce street tree planting to Edinburgh Road. Articulate new facades to rear and Eastern Valley Way to relate to the scale of adjacent housing in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. New development to be compatible with the existing rear scale or setbacks. Minimise impact of parking by locating the parking at rear or below ground. Squash Court Site, 1959 (3 The Postern) Could be redeveloped but not at greater scale. New development should be no higher than the existing SW façade New development should improve interface with Griffin pathway and 5 The Postern by setbacks, scale and landscaping. Provide setback to public walkway of 3m. Articulate facades to relate to the scale of adjacent housing in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, and to reduce impact on adjoining residential development Enhance landscape screening on perimeter of site and at the rear of the site with additional plantings of locally indigenous canopy trees. New development to interpret original subdivision layout as per 1921 subdivision of ‘The Parapet’. Interpret/reinstate original subdivision and pathway linking to Cortile Reserve. Minimise impact of parking by locating the parking at rear or below ground. Edinburgh Road north shops (73-93 Edinburgh Rd) Create an appropriate gateway to the suburb. Lots 73-77 Edinburgh Road car park provide an opportunity to reflect and project the unique landscape character of Castlecrag New development to read as group of shops - not as an apartment building New development to be predominantly 2 storey, additional floors should be visually discreet and setback. Provide fine grain active frontage. New development provides the opportunity to restore facades, canopies and shop fronts. Protect mature trees within the block Provide for locally indigenous canopy planting at rear of blocks Minimise impact of parking by locating the parking at rear or below ground.



| 35

Edinburgh Road north residential (95-103 Edinburgh Rd) Maintain landscape setbacks and landscape backdrop, landscaping of corner sites New development to read as houses in landscape, New development to transition to low scale of Castlecrag, i.e. 2 storey scale Provide landscaped front setbacks and side setbacks, No fencing to Edinburgh Rd Protect mature trees within the block Provide for locally indigenous canopy planting at rear of blocks Minimise impact of parking by locating the parking at rear or below ground.

3.9. ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACT The existing Heritage Management Policies and Controls embodied in the WDCP are focussed on the existing areas of low scale residential development which comprise the bulk of the Conservation Area. Because of this, detailed constraints and opportunities relevant to the commercial precincts with potential for increased density have been identified and formulated into a set of specific Heritage Principles to guide their future development in order to protect the heritage values. The heritage impact of the proposed options for development of the Castlecrag Town Centre is assessed against the existing DCP Heritage Management Policies and Controls, as well as the recommended Heritage Principles identified in this study. Two proposals for the redevelopment of the Castlecrag Local Centre are assessed below: Scenario 4 and Scenario 5. (Refer Appendices) THE FOURTH SCENARIO The fourth scenario was based on public, stakeholder and Council feedback on three earlier scenarios, and retained existing B1 neighbourhood Centre and R3 Medium Density residential for the centre, introduced a minimum non-residential FSR control in the B1 zone and an active ground floor frontage control in the B1 zone, and concentrated increased height to the south of Edinburgh Rd to minimise solar access and amenity impacts. Key Recommendations (LEP and DCP) 1. Increase heights up to 4 storeys with an FSR up to 1:1 on the Quadrangle site 2. Retain heights of up to 3 storeys and increase FSR up to 1.8:1 on the Griffin Centre Site. 3. Increase heights up to 3 storeys with an FSR ranging from 1.4-1.6:1 in the B1 zone north of

Edinburgh Rd. 4. Rezone 3 The Postern to R3 Medium Density Residential with a height limit of up to 4 storeys and

FSR up to 1.1:1. 5. Retain R3 zoning and FSR of 0.7:1 to the north of Edinburgh Rd (95-103). 6. Rezone the Council owned car park adjacent to the Griffin Centre to RE1 Public Open Space 7. Minimum 3m upper level setback (2nd storey) for shop top housing 8. Provide a new publicly accessible plaza within the Quadrangle site with a minimum width of 18m

and clear views to the south 9. Maintain direct pedestrian through site links from the Quadrangle site to The Postern



| 36

10. Maintain full sun access along the length of the footpath on the southern side of Edinburgh Rd between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice

11. Any redevelopment of the Quadrangle site is to retain the mature trees at the rear of the site. POTENTIAL YIELD Scenario 4 could yield an additional 2,139sqm of non-residential floor space and 8,120sqm of residential floor space or approximately 90 dwellings. This is in excess of the 1,973sqm of additional employment space that the Castlecrag centre would require by 2041.31 THE REVISED FIFTH SCENARIO The final (fifth) scenario was based on Councils review of Scenario 4 and comments from the community. This proposal retained the Griffin Centre and extended the curved façade to reinforce The Postern and maintained small scale shop fronts to Edinburgh Road. It reinstated a green link to the Postern. It created a medium density typology for the 95-103 Edinburgh Road site. Key Recommendations (LEP and DCP) 1. Increase heights up to 4 storeys on Eastern Valley Way and up to 3 storeys above Edinburgh Road

with an FSR up to 1.6:1 on the Quadrangle site. An FSR could be considered to 1.8:1 if more economically feasible and allow a future development to utilise the topography of the Quadrangle site without adversely impacting the streetscape and scale of the centre.

2. Retain existing controls for the Griffin Centre and identify as a heritage Item 3. Increase heights up to 3 storeys, with an FSR of 1.6:1 in the B1 zone north of Edinburg Road 4. Retain B1 zoning for The Postern, with a height limit of 3 storeys and maintain existing FSR of 1:1 5. Retain R3 zoning and FSR of 0.7:1 to the north of Edinburg Road (95-103) 6. Rezone the Council owned car park adjacent to the Griffin Centre to RE1 Public Open Space 7. Minimum 3m upper level setback (2nd storey) for shop top housing. Provide a new publicly

accessible plaza within the Quadrangle site as a setback along Edinburgh Road with a minimum width of 3.5m

8. Maintain direct pedestrian through site links from the Quadrangle site to The Postern 9. Maintain full sun access along the length of the footpath on the southern side of Edinburgh Road

between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice 10. Any redevelopment of the Quadrangle site is to retain the mature trees at the fear of the site 11. Green entry point 12. Rooftop garden COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING HERITAGE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND CONTROLS (DCP)

DCP POLICY/CONTROL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - SCENARIO 4 AND SCENARIO 5

Retain and where possible reinstate the original subdivision pattern and linked

Both scenarios interpret the original Griffin Road, and a new park is proposed at the corner of the Postern and Edinburgh Rd.

31 SGS quoted by Architectus



| 37

system of public reserves and pedestrian pathways

The walkway connecting to the Cortile Reserve is not reinstated in its original position, however it is interpreted in a different alignment.

Retain road islands, rock cuttings, sandstone retaining walls, kerb and guttering, grass road verges and bushland nature strips

Both scenarios retain street planting and planting to the walkways The Griffin road island at the corner of The Postern is reinterpreted.

Retain and enhance original griffin subdivision

Both scenarios interpret the original Griffin Road layout, and a new park is proposed in the location of the original road island at the corner of The Postern and Edinburgh Rd. The extent of the Griffin Subdivision is not interpreted. The original subdivision is not interpreted on Squash Court site. The walkway connecting to the Cortile Reserve is not reinstated in its original position, however it is interpreted in a different alignment.

Setback to public walkways 3m

Both scenarios propose an increased setback to the Griffin walkway on the Squash Court site

Informal, heavily landscaped front gardens dominated by indigenous shrubs and trees. Maintain, enhance and protect indigenous landscape

Scenario 4 retains the existing landscape zone to front gardens at 95-103 Edinburgh Rd. Mature boundary trees are retained in Scenario 4. In Scenario 5 there is no potential for retention of the existing landscape zone to front gardens at 95-103 Edinburgh Rd unless the block is pushed back located further North.

The height, scale, bulk, massing and proportion, site cover, location and visibility of new development must be such that: - built forms are subordinate to the natural landscape; - the spacing between buildings and rhythms of the streetscapes are retained, or opened up to create vistas of the natural landscape; - under croft areas are not visually intrusive in the landscape when viewed from the water or the land; - buildings are highly articulated in plan and elevation

The height, scale and bulk of buildings proposed on the Quadrangle site in Scenario 4 is such that built forms dominate the natural landscape. In Scenario 5, the reduced scale of the apartment blocks behind the two storeys façade, allows the canopy to dominate built form. Vistas through to the canopy may be opened up through the plaza in Scenario 4 but are not provided in Scenario 5 due to the reduced envelope and retained FSR. Neither scenario provides the level of detail to determine whether under croft areas are intrusive, but they are largely concealed by the rear 11m landscape strip. While schematic, the quadrangle building does not appear to be adequately articulated by distinguishing the lower level and breaking the existing long façade. This could be achieved. The townhouse development at 95-103 Edinburgh Rd in Scenario 4 and 5 does not retain the spacing between buildings and rhythms of the streetscapes and does not open up or allow vistas of the natural landscape. This is particularly problematic in Scenario 5.



| 38

Low scale, maintain and reinstate predominance of native landscape over built form.

The scale of the Quadrangle and Squash Courts site proposals in Scenario 4 does not enable this principle to be achieved. The reduced scale of the Quadrangle and Squash Court proposals in Scenario 5 provides opportunity for this principle to be achieved. The built form indicated north of Edinburgh Rd at 95-103 in Scenario 5, indicates a loss of landscape component to Edinburgh Road in addition to the loss of space between the buildings.

The scale and massing of new development is to respect the Griffins’ objective to have all built forms subservient to the landscape.

The scale and massing of new development on the Quadrangle, and Squash Court Site in Scenario 4 does not respect the Griffins’ objective to have all built forms subservient to the landscape. The reduced scale of new development on the Quadrangle, and Squash Court Site in Scenario 5 supports the objective.

Open up vistas or views Vistas through to the canopy may be opened up through the plaza in Scenario 4. No opportunity for opening up vistas is provided in Scenario 5

Simple flat roofs or low-pitched hipped roof forms in recessive neutral colours

Simple flat roofs are indicated in both the Scenario perspectives

Stepped, well-articulated elevations, projecting bays asymmetrical building forms, horizontal emphasis. Avoid use of strong vertical elements such as fenestrations or columns.

The scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to assess this. The perspective of Scenario 4 indicates aspects of the design with a horizontal emphasis which are countered by the height of the tower elements and the expressed structural frame and vertical louvres.

Materials and colours must blend inconspicuously with the predominant colours of the local bushland;

The perspectives for both Scenarios appear to indicate a sandstone colonnade which is appropriate, however the documentation does not provide the level of detail required to assess this principle.

Stone render or timber in recessive neutral colours which blend inconspicuously with the predominant colours of the local bushland.

The perspective appears to indicate a sandstone colonnade and neutral dark toned elements which may be recessive, however the scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to assess this principle.

Horizontal emphasis to groups of windows, details

There is no evidence of horizontal grouping of windows and details in either scenario.

Carparking, including garages are to be designed and sited to retain the unique character of the usually well vegetated narrow winding roadways and public open spaces;

In both Scenarios, the existing on grade carparking area at the north corner of Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley way is retained without improvement. The on grade carparking area at the corner of The Postern is replaced with a landscaped park and this is a positive impact. Scenario 4 provides a public open space as a plaza within the quadrangle site. Both schemes propose a new park at the corner of The Postern.



| 39

Locally indigenous vegetation is to be used for landscaped areas, including private open space adjoining Griffin walkways,

The scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to asses this however scope exists to achieve this principle.

Reduce impact of cars The scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to asses this however scope exists to achieve this principle.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST RECOMMENDED HERITAGE PRINCIPLES

HERITAGE PRINCIPLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - SCENARIO 4 AND SCENARIO 5

New development must not dominate or overwhelm the existing village character of the shops and their relationship to the Griffin centre.

The 5-storey scale of new residential development on the Quadrangle Site overwhelms the low scale village character in Scenario 4. In Scenario 5, the revised 3 storey scale with 2 storey shop front protects the village character. Neither scenario indicates an articulated façade with spaces between building.

Retain the village character of a grouping of separate buildings.

The retention of the Griffin Centre in Scenario 5 supports the village character.

Retain and encourage active uses at Edinburgh Road.

Both schemes encourage active uses on Edinburgh Rd however the development of 95-103 Edinburgh Rd in Scenario 5 does not provide active uses despite being built to the street alignment.

Retain, reinstate or interpret the original Griffin subdivision pattern and linked system of pedestrian pathways on the site within the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area

The extent of the Griffin Subdivision is not interpreted in either Scenario. The linked system of pathways does not continue through the Quadrangle site in either scenario. The original subdivision is not interpreted on Squash Court site.

Reinstate original Griffin road island planting (and interpret roadway) at the corner of Edinburgh Road and the Postern.

The original Griffin Road is interpreted, and a new park is proposed at the corner of the Postern and Edinburgh Rd. The Griffin road island at the corner of The Postern is reinterpreted in both Scenarios.

Reinstate or interpret the original Griffin subdivision and pedestrian pathway linking to Cortile Reserve.

The walkway connecting to the Cortile Reserve is not reinstated in its original position in either scenario, however it is interpreted in a different alignment.

Reinforce/reinstate Griffin pathways as vegetated pedestrian ways and to provide meaningful links from Edinburgh Road shops to The Postern

Existing Griffin pathways are retained but do not provide meaningful links from Edinburgh Road shops to The Postern in either scenario.



| 40

Create a strong landscape framework for town centre with locally indigenous vegetation: - landscape at entry points and corners - as canopy backdrops - as street planting/perimeter planting, reinforcing Griffin Subdivision

No additional landscape is provided at entry points in either Scenario, however both have provided a landscape park at the corner of the Postern. Both Scenarios protect the existing canopy behind the shops, and both Scenarios indicate additional street planting. Neither provide additional planting to the Squash court site or along pathways to reinforce Griffin subdivision.

Preserve existing landscape components, protect and enhance street planting and trees on private properties

Both Scenarios result in loss of canopy trees on the squash court site. In Scenario 5, the development at 95-103 Edinburgh Rd results in loss of landscape on private properties to the Edinburgh Road frontage

New development must retain and protect the landscape setting for the shops provided by the landscaped zone 11m wide to the rear.

In both Scenarios, new development retains the landscape setting for the shops provided by the landscaped zone 11m wide to the rear, but vegetation on the Squash Court site is lost.

New development provides an opportunity to enhance the landscape canopy within the block, and to the perimeter of the block with locally indigenous vegetation. Protect the landscape backdrop to no’s 5-11 The Postern.

Neither scenario indicates an enhanced landscape canopy to the perimeter of the block, and both provide some planting within courtyards on the Quadrangle site

Respect Griffin design principle of subordinating buildings to the natural landscape

The height, scale and bulk of buildings proposed on the Quadrangle site in Scenario 4 is such that built forms dominate the natural landscape. In Scenario 5, the reduced scale of the apartment blocks behind the two-storey façade, allows the canopy to dominate built form.

Ensure that new developments respect the predominant scale and form of the area and are sympathetic to original built form (Griffin shops)

The height, scale and bulk of buildings proposed on the Quadrangle site in Scenario 4 does not respect the predominant scale and form of the area. In Scenario 5, the reduced scale of the apartment blocks behind the two-storey façade is sympathetic to original and existing built form.

Built form to be subordinate to landscape, and occur below canopy,

The height, scale and bulk of buildings proposed on the Quadrangle site and Squash Court site in Scenario 4 is such that built forms dominate the natural landscape. In Scenario 5, the reduced scale of the apartment blocks behind the two storey façade, allows the canopy to dominate built form.



| 41

Employ simple flat roofs to reduce scale on Edinburgh Road sites, or low-pitched hipped roof forms that respond to the 1924 Griffin shops.

Both Scenarios employ flat roofs which is appropriate.

Built form to respond to topography, by stepping to minimise bulk, restrict under croft areas, and minimise cutting and filling.

In Scenario 4, built form steps to the rear with the topography. In Scenario 5, the built form does not respond to the topography, In particular Level 2 (fourth storey from rear)

Provide stepped, well-articulated elevations, with horizontal emphasis.

The Scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to assess this.

Horizontal emphasis to elevations, fenestration, and details

There is no evidence of horizontal grouping of windows and details in either Scenario.

Use materials to blend with predominant colours of the local bushland (sandstone, concrete) and recessive neutral colours.

The perspectives for both Scenarios appear to indicate a sandstone colonnade and neutral dark toned elements which may be recessive, however the scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to assess this principle.

Carparking must be visually discreet

Generally carparking appears to be discreet, other than the retention of carparking at corner of Eastern Valley Way

Develop a carparking strategy for each block, to limit entry and exit points and enable on grade carparking spaces at corner of The Postern and Edinburgh Rd, and at the corner of Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Rd to be relocated to allow landscaping of these key areas.

The scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to assess the carparking strategy, however both retain on grade carparking at the corner of Eastern Valley Way, and both remove on grade carparking at the corner of The Postern.

GRIFFIN CENTRE SHOPS 1924 (120 EDINBURGH RD)

Retain and conserve the original four 1924 shops

In Scenario 4, the original four shops are retained however the additional two floors proposed on top of the shops will degrade their heritage values. In Scenario 5, the original shops are retained.

Restore facades, canopies and shop fronts of the original four shops as per early photos (reference)

The scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to asses this however scope exists to achieve this principle.



| 42

New development must maintain the existing scale defined by the ridge height of the existing development.

In Scenario 4, new development does not meet this principle as an additional 2 levels are proposed on top of the heritage shops. This is an unacceptable heritage impact.

New development should reinforce the curve of the original roadway by continuing curved form, roof and overhang

In both Scenarios, new development reinforces the curve of the original roadway

New development should be consistent with existing patterns of height and block width, materials, and relationship of solid to void.

The Scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to asses this however scope exists to achieve this principle.

New development to interpret original lot layout as per 1921 subdivision of ‘The Parapet’

The Scenarios do not appear to achieve this principle.

Carparking must be visually discreet

Scenario 4 does not provide the level of detail required to asses this however scope exists to achieve this principle.

Provide street planting along The Postern and interpret alignment of original Griffin road

Scenario 4 and 5 achieve this principle

Reinforce original Postern road alignment as per Griffin plan with landscape island

Both scenarios reinforce the road alignment and the landscape island interpreted in both scenarios

Protect and enhance the existing landscape zone at rear of the shops to provide locally indigenous canopy backdrop

The existing landscape zone may be impacted by the footprint of the proposed development in both scenarios.

Prepare an Interpretation Strategy

This could be achieved in both Scenarios.

SHOPS, 116-118 EDINBURGH ROAD (between Griffin Centre and Quadrangle) Could be redeveloped but not at greater scale

Neither Scenario proposes change to this site

Provide a transition between Griffin Centre Shops (1 storey) and Quadrangle site (3 storey)


Provide fine grain active frontage


Protect and enhance the existing landscape zone at rear of the shops to provide locally




| 43

indigenous vegetation canopy backdrop for new development QUADRANGLE SITE (100 Edinburgh Rd) New development (2 and 3 storeys) to provide upgrade of the shopping precinct and reinforce the original intention of the group.

In Scenario 4, new development at 5 storey scale is proposed. The scale is excessive and does not respect the original intention of the group. In Scenario 5, new development is reduced to 3 storey and this reinforces the original intention of the group.

New development to read as group of shops - not as an apartment building

New development is dominated by the residential towers in Scenario 4. The reduced height of the towers in Scenario 5 allows the two-storey façade and commercial component to be dominant in views of the site form Edinburgh Road.

Landscape canopy of street trees and needs to dominate scale of new development.

In Scenario 4, The scale of the development does not allow the canopy to dominate. In Scenario 5, the reduced scale allows the canopy to dominate

Provide a substantial locally indigenous landscape planting at corner Edinburgh Road and Eastern Valley way

No landscape is proposed for the corner of Edinburgh Rd and Eastern Valley Way on either Scenario.

Retain, protect and enhance the landscaped zone approx. 11m wide to the rear with additional plantings of with locally indigenous canopy trees. New development must not encroach on the landscape zone at the rear of the shops.

The landscaped zone to the rear is retained and could be enhanced. New development in both schemes may impact upon the health of these mature trees

Do not exceed existing rear scale or setbacks

In Scenario 4, the buildings step down to the rear. in Scenario 5 the existing rear scale is exceeded with 4 storey south elevations]EG

Recognise and interpret the boundary of the Griffin Subdivision which runs through the site. (refer 1921 Subdivision)

There is no evidence of this in either Scenario

Provide fine grain active frontage.

The perspectives of both Scenarios indicate a fine grain active frontage

New facades to rear and Eastern Valley Way be articulated to relate to the dominant scale of adjacent

In both scenarios, new facades to the rear are articulated to relate to the dominant scale of houses beyond, however the west façades are not articulated.



| 44

housing in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area. Explore alternatives to provide a recessed courtyard that interpret the Griffin Subdivision and allows views to landscape zone beyond.]EG

Scenario 4 incorporates a courtyard that could interpret the Griffin subdivision, link to pathways and allow views to canopy beyond. Scenario 5 does not provide this opportunity

Reinforce street tree planting Street tree planting is reinforced in both scenarios. Minimise impact of parking by locating at rear or basement

Both Scenarios appear to provide basement carparking

SQUASH COURT SITE, 1959 (3 The Postern)

Could be redeveloped but not at greater scale.

Both scenarios include redevelopment of the Squash Court site. Both Scenarios show development at greater scale than the existing building (7.5m) Scenario 4 shows 4 storey development which would dominate the adjoining HCA. Scenario 5 shows 3 storey development which is closer to the existing scale.

New development should be no higher than the existing SW façade

Both Scenarios exceed the height of the existing SW facade

New development should improve interface with Griffin pathway and 5 The Postern by setbacks, scale and landscaping. Provide setback to public walkway of 3m.

Both Scenarios provide increased setback and have the potential to provide landscaping.

Articulate facades to relate to the dominant length of adjacent housing in the Griffin Heritage Conservation Area, and to reduce impact on adjoining residential development

The Scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to assess this. Both scenarios provide increased setback and have the potential to reduce impact on adjoining residential development

Enhance landscape screening on perimeter of site and at the rear of the site with additional plantings of locally indigenous canopy trees.


New development to interpret original subdivision layout as per 1921 subdivision of ‘The Parapet’. Interpret/reinstate

There is no evidence of interpretation of the 1921 subdivision layout in either Scenario. Both scenarios provide for an interpretation of the original pathway linking to the Cortile Reserve in a different location.



| 45

original subdivision and pathway linking to Cortile Reserve. Minimise impact of parking by locating at rear or basement


EDINBURGH ROAD NORTH SHOPS (73-93 Edinburgh Rd) Create an appropriate gateway to the suburb- Lots 73-77 Edinburgh Rd provide an opportunity to reflect and project the unique landscape character of Castlecrag

Neither Scenario improves the landscape character of Lots 73-77 Edinburgh Rd

New development to read as group of shops - not as an apartment building]EG

Both Scenarios read as group of shops rather than an apartment building

New development to be predominantly 2 storey, additional floors should be visually discreet

Both scenarios show development at 1-2 storey scale with the third level set back. Both indicate a single storey corner shop which allows views to third level. A two-storey corner building would screen views of the third floor.

Provide fine grain active frontage.

The perspectives of both Scenarios indicate a fine grain active frontage

New development provides the opportunity to restore facades, canopies and shop fronts.


Protect mature trees within the block

Neither Scenario appears to protect trees within the block

Provide for locally indigenous canopy planting at rear of blocks

Both scenarios provide for additional planting within the block.

Minimise impact of parking by locating at rear or basement


EDINBURGH ROAD NORTH RESIDENTIAL (95-103 Edinburgh Rd)

Maintain landscape setbacks and landscape backdrop, landscaping of corner sites

Scenario 4 provides for landscape setback and Scenario 5 does not. Scenario 5 provides a landscape backdrop and Scenario 4 does not. Scenario 5 does not provide opportunity for landscaping on corner sites

New development to read as houses in landscape,

Nether Scenario provides development that reads as houses in the landscape



| 46

New development to transition to low scale of Castlecrag, i.e. 2 storey scale

Both scenarios are two storey scale

Provide landscaped front setbacks and side setbacks,

Scenario 4 provides landscape front setbacks. Scenario 5 is built to the front and side boundaries

No fencing to Edinburgh Rd The Scenarios do not provide the level of detail required to assess this.

Protect mature trees within the block

Scenario 4 protects existing trees within the front setback. Scenario 5 requires removal of existing trees within the front setback.

Provide for locally indigenous canopy planting at rear of blocks

Scenario 5 provides opportunity for rear canopy planting

Minimise impact of parking by locating at rear or basement


Summary The Edinburgh Road shops have the capacity to provide some increased development and provide for an upgrade of the shopping precinct, and the opportunity to reinforce the heritage values of Castlecrag. The height, scale and bulk of buildings proposed on the Quadrangle site in Scenario 4 is such that built forms dominate the natural landscape. The 5 storey scale of new residential development on the Quadrangle Site overwhelms the low scale village character, and the residential towers dominate the commercial podium. Scenario 5 has reduced Scenario 4 to an appropriate scale. In Scenario 5, the reduced scale of the apartment blocks behind the two storey façade, allows the canopy to dominate built form and protects the village character. The increase of both sides of Edinburgh to three storeys and 11m is appropriate. The proposed increase in height on the Quadrangle site 100 Edinburgh road is consistent with the existing height of the 116-118 Edinburgh Road and the northern shops at 73-93 Edinburgh Road. It will also be more effective at concealing upper levels. The southern sites benefit from a site fall of one storey. Scenario 4 steps the upper level to limit the rear faced height to three storeys. Scenario 5 does not. A continuous deep colonnade to Edinburgh Road provides an appropriate two-storey façade and base to the development. Street based activity with deep colonnades is preferred below level retail such as supermarket maximizes the ground for speciality retail. The third storey should be setback from the alignment and read as a separate element which does not dominate the two-storey façade. Scenario 4 provides a north facing plaza although its depth will limit full solar access. Scenario 5 does not provide a north facing plaza. This is in past due to the reduced envelop restricting in achieving a similar FSR. The north facing plaza and the site links although related perform different roles. The



| 47

primary aim is a north facing plaza is to provide a courtyard with solar access, while the primary aim of the site link is to view the landscape canopy beyond. The car entry separated 116-118 and 100 Edinburgh road. Both scenarios develop above the car entry which is a significant opportunity for a site link which coincides with the Griffin pathway. The revised scenario retains the 1924 Griffin shops, and they should be considered for heritage listing. The original Griffin Road is interpreted, and a new park is proposed at the corner of the Postern and Edinburgh Rd. The Griffin road island at the corner of The Postern is reinterpreted in both Scenarios. The extent of the Griffin Subdivision is not interpreted in either Scenario. The original subdivision is not interpreted on Squash Court site. Existing Griffin pathways are retained but do not provide meaningful links from Edinburgh Road shops to The Postern in either scenario. The walkway connecting to the Cortile Reserve is not reinstated in its original position in either scenario, however it is interpreted in a different alignment. No additional landscape is provided at entry points in either Scenario, however both have provided a landscape park at the corner of the Postern. Both Scenarios protect the existing canopy behind the shops, and both indicate additional street planting, but vegetation on the Squash Court site is lost. Neither provide additional planting to the Squash court site or along pathways to reinforce Griffin subdivision.



| 48

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY Draft Willoughby Local Centres Strategy to 2036 Willoughby Local Centres Urban Design Study (Architectus) Artarmon -Past Present and Future compiled by Grace Warner Building for Nature Walter Burley Griffin and Castlecrag- Walter Burley Griffin Society Incorporated National Trust Listings- Castlecrag and Artarmon State Heritage Inventory listings Wilkes Plaza Architectural Projects PL, Review of Heritage Conservation Area, Willoughby City Council, 2015 NSRS & Partners, Statement of Heritage Impact, 98-102 Hampden Road, Artarmon, 2019 Wayne McPhee and Associates, Heritage Report nos, 1-9 Wilkes Plaza Artarmon, 1998.



| 49

5. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE NO. DATE DESCRIPTION SOURCE Figure 2.1 2019 Aerial Photogaph, Artarmon Town Centre SIX Maps Figure 2.2 2019 Historical Aerial Photograph, Artarmon

Town Centre SIX Maps

Figure 2.3 2019 Artarmon Shops, Hampden Road Architectural Projects Figure 2.4 1980 Artarmon Shops, Hampden road Willoughby Council Figure 2.5 2019 Wilkes Avenue from Elizabeth Street Architectural Projects Figure 2.6 1981 Wilkes Avenue from Elizabeth Street Willoughby Council Figure 2.7 2019 Heritage Map - Artarmon WLEP Figure 2.8 2019 Existing and Proposed Controls Architectural Projects Figure 2.9 1898 Artarmon Estate, First Subdivision Willoughby Council Figure 2.10 1910c Artarmon shops, Hampden Road Willoughby Council Figure 2.11 1980 Hampden Road, Artarmon Willoughby Council Figure 2.12 2018 Artarmon Scenario 4, Draft Willoughby

Local Centres Strategy to 2036 Architectus

Figure 2.13 2018 Artarmon Scenario 4, Draft Willoughby Local Centres Strategy to 2036

Architectus


Architectus


Architectus

Figure 2.16 2019 Broughton Road looking South Architectural Projects Figure 2.17 2019 Broughton Road looking North Architectural Projects Figure 2.18 2019 Francis Road looking South Architectural Projects Figure 2.19 2019 Francis Road looking North Architectural Projects Figure 2.20 2019 Streetscape between Jersey Road and

Broughton Road Architectural Projects

Figure 2.21 2019 Streetscape between Broughton Road and Francis Road

Architectural Projects

Figure 2.22 2019 Streetscape between Broughton Road and Francis Road


Figure 2.23 2019 Key views Broughton Road looking South Architectural Projects Figure 2.24 2019 Key views Broughton Road looking North Architectural Projects Figure 2.25 2019 Key views. Jersey Street looking North Architectural Projects Figure 2.26 2019 Key views Francis Road looking South Architectural Projects Figure 3.1 2019 Aerial Photogaph, CastlecragTown Centre SIX Maps Figure 3.2 1943 Historical Aerial Photograph, Castlecrag

Town Centre SIX Maps

Figure 3.3 2019 Quadrangle Shoppping Village, Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag

Google

Figure 3.4 1981 Quadrangle Shoppping Village, Edinburgh Rd, Castlecrag

Willoughby Council



| 50

Figure 3.5 2019 Griffin Centre Shops Architectural Projects Figure 3.6 1926 Shops on Lot 4, Castlecrag Album, Griffin

Walter Burley National Library of Australia

Figure 3.7 2019 Heritage Map - Artarmon WLEP Figure 3.8 2019 Existing and Proposed Controls Architectural Projects Figure 3.9 1921 The Parapet Subdivision, Castlecrag Building for Nature Figure 3.10 1921 Detail of 6 shops, The Parapet Subdivision Building for Nature Figure 3.11 1922 Shop Covecrag, Walter Burley Griffin National Library of Australia Figure 3.12 1952 Castlecrag Post Office site, Lot 3 No. 118

Edinburgh Road, [view of site acroos road and shop]

National Archives of Australia

Figure 3.13 2018 Edinburgh Road looking South Architectus Figure 3.14 2018 Edinburgh Road looking North Architectus



| 51

6. LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A & B Artarmon Local Centres: Scenario 4, Scenario 5

APPENDIX C & D Castlecrag Local Centres: Scenario 4, Scenario 5

©Architectural Projects Pty Limited – 1872 HR Illustrations v1r3 20191129 sa copy

1872 | Artarmon/Castlecrag Local Centres

DRAFT

Fig. 2.1 2019 Aerial Photograph, Artarmon Town Centre SIX Maps

Fig. 2.2 1943 Historical Aerial Photograph, Artarmon Town Centre SIX Maps



DRAFT

Fig. 2.3 2019 Artarmon Shops, Hampden Road Architectural Projects

Fig. 2.4 1980 Artarmon Shops, Hampden Road Willoughby Council



DRAFT

Fig. 2.5 2019 Wilkes Avenue from Elizabeth Street Architectural Projects

Fig. 2.6 1981 Wilkes Avenue from Elizabeth Street Willoughby Council



DRAFT

Fig. 2.7 2019 Heritage Map - Artarmon WLEP

Fig. 2.8 Existing and Proposed Controls Architectural Projects



DRAFT

Fig. 2.9 1898 Artarmon Estate, First Subdivision Willoughby City Council



DRAFT

Fig. 2.10 1910c Artarmon Shops, Hampden Road Willoughby Council

Fig. 2.11 1980 Hampden Road, Artarmon Willoughby Council



DRAFT

Fig. 2.12 2018 Artarmon Scenario 4, Draft Willoughby Local Centres Strategy to 2036

Architectus


Architectus



DRAFT


Architectus


Architectus



DRAFT

Fig. 2.16 2019 Broughton Road looking South Architectural Projects

Fig. 2.17 2019 Broughton Road looking North Architectural Projects



DRAFT

Fig. 2.18 2019 Francis Road looking South Architectural Projects

Fig. 2.19 2019 Francis Road looking North Architectural Projects

©Architectural Projects Pty Limited – 1872 HR Illustrations v1r3 20191129 sa copy_2 December 2019 1:46 pm


DRAFT

Fig. 2.20 2019 Streetscape between Jersey Road and Boughton Road Architectural Projects

Fig. 2.21 2019 Streetscape between Broughton Road and Francis Road Architectural Projects



DRAFT

Fig. 2.22 2019 Streetscape between Broughton Road and Francis Road




DRAFT

Fig. 2.23 2019 Key Views Broughton Road looking South Architectural Projects

Fig. 2.24 2019 Key Views Broughton Road looking North Architectural Projects



DRAFT

Fig. 2.25 2019 Key Views Jersey Road looking North Architectural Projects

Fig. 2.26 2019 Key Views Francis Road looking South Architectural Projects



DRAFT

Fig. 3.1 2019 Aerial Photograph, Castlecrag Town Centre SIX Maps

Fig. 3.2 1943 Historic Aerial Photograph, Castlecrag Town Centre SIX Maps



DRAFT

Fig. 3.3 2019 Quadrangle Shopping Village, Edinbugh Rd Castlecrag Google

Fig. 3.4 1981 Quadrangle Shopping Village, Edinbugh Rd Castlecrag Willoughby Council



DRAFT

Fig. 3.5 2019 Griffin Centre Shops Architectural Projects

Fig. 3.6 1926 Shops on Lot 4, Castlecrag Album, Griffin Walter Burley

National Library of Australia



DRAFT

Fig. 3.7 2019 Heritage Map - Castlecrag WLEP

Fig. 3.8 Existing and Proposed Controls Architectural Projects



DRAFT

Fig. 3.9 1921 The Parapet Subdivision, Castlecrag Building for Nature

Fig. 3.10 1921 Detail of 6 shops, The Parapet Subdivision Building for Nature



DRAFT

Fig. 3.11 1922 Shop Covecrag, Walter, Burley Griffin National Library of Australia

Fig. 3.12 1952 Castlecrag Post Office site, Lot 3 No. 118 Edinburgh Rd, [view of site across road and shop]

National Archives of Australia

©Architectural Projects Pty Limited – 1872 HR Illustrations v1r3 20191129 sa copy_2 December 2019 1:46 pm


DRAFT

Fig. 3.13 2018 Edinburgh Road looking South Architectus

Fig. 3.14 2018 Edinburgh Road looking North Architectus

14

Scenario for Discussion

This fourth scenario has been developed based on public, stakeholder and Council feedback on three

earlier scenarios recently exhibited (see page 8), and is now offered for further discussion. General

recommendations include the following:

Retain existing B1 neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zoning for the Centre

Introduce a minimum non-residential FSR control in the B1 and B2 zones

Introduce an active ground floor frontage control in the B1 and B2 zones

Introduce a height incentive provision for lot amalgamation along Hampden Rd to deliver a

new supermarket

Retain the existing fine grain heritage frontage on Hampden Rd while allowing for site

amalgamations to deliver development above

15

Key Recommendations (LEP) (Numbering below refers to the above preferred scenario

diagram)

1. Increase heights up to 10 storeys and FSRs up to 3.6:1 on amalgamated sites

fronting Hampden Rd and Broughton Rd, close to the train station

2. Increase heights up to 8 storeys and FSRs up to 3.2:1 on amalgamated sites fronting

Hampden Rd, between Francis Rd and Jersey Rd

Council comment: Include a clause clarifying that there must be the amalgamation of lots in

order to achieve the bonus height and FSR otherwise current WLEP 2012 controls apply

3. Maintain heights of up to 3 storeys and an FSR of 1.3:1 on the library site. Ground

floor uses to be community uses

Key Recommendations (DCP)

4. Retain and enhance the fine grain shopfronts and character along Hampden Rd

5. Require a minimum 8m podium setback (above 2nd

storey) to residential apartments

fronting Hampden Rd with an additional 3m upper level setback to towers fronting

Hampden Rd and side streets

6. Ensure that building separation between towers is consistent with the separation

between blocks to the west to maximise solar access, district views and open space

opportunities.

16

Indicative Master Plan

This indicative master plan for

Artarmon details the key features of

this scenario and shows how future

development might be achieved

alongside other opportunities for

public domain improvements in the

centre.

17

Artarmon Sketch Perspective

Artist impression looking south from Artarmon Station to the intersection of Hampden Rd and Broughton Rd.

Potential Yield

SGS Economics and Planning assessed the Artarmon local centre as requiring an additional

3,958sqm of non-residential floor space by 2041 with an existing surplus retail capacity of 1,111sqm

in the centre. The scenario for discussion could yield around an additional 6,601sqm of non-

residential floor space in the Artarmon local centre and an additional 17,499 sqm of residential floor

space (194 residential dwellings).

22

Key Recommendations (LEP) (Numbering below refers to the above preferred scenario

diagram)

1. Increase heights up to 5 storeys with an FSR up to 1.6:1 on the Quadrangle site

Council comment: An FSR of 1.8:1 would be more economically feasible and allow a future

development to utilise the topography of the Quadrangle site without adversely impacting the

streetscape and scale of the centre.

2. Retain heights of up to 3 storeys and increase FSR up to 1.8:1 on the Griffin Centre Site.

3. Increase heights up to 3 storeys with an FSR ranging from 1.4-1.6:1 in the B1 zone north of

Edinburgh Rd.

4. Rezone 3 The Postern to R3 Medium Density Residential with a height limit of up to 4 storeys

and FSR up to 1.1:1.

5. Retain R3 zoning and FSR of 0.7:1 to the north of Edinburgh Rd (95-103).

6. Rezone the Council owned car park adjacent to the Griffin Centre to RE1 Public Open Space

Key Recommendations (DCP)

7. Minimum 3m upper level setback (2nd

storey) for shop top housing

8. Provide a new publicly accessible plaza within the Quadrangle site with a minimum width of

18m and clear views to the south

9. Maintain direct pedestrian through site links from the Quadrangle site to The Postern

10. Maintain full sun access along the length of the footpath on the southern side of Edinburgh Rd

between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice

11. Any redevelopment of the Quadrangle site is to retain the mature trees at the rear of the site

23

Indicative Masterplan

This indicative master plan for

Castlecrag details the key features of

this scenario and shows how future

development might be achieved

alongside other opportunities for

public domain improvements in the

centre.

24

Castlecrag Sketch Perspective

Artist impression looking east along Edinburgh Rd from Eastern Valley Way.

Potential Yield

The study by SGS projected that the Castlecrag centre would require an additional 1,973sqm of

employment space by 2041. The scenario for discussion could yield an additional 2,139sqm of non-

residential floor space and 8,120sqm of residential floor space or approximately 90 dwellings.

Documents

1872 – Artarmon/Castlecrag Local Centres Draft Heritage Report … · 2019. 12. 4. · © Architectural Projects Pty Limited: 1872 R1 HR Artarmon:Castlecrag Local Centres v2r5 20191202